Net Neutrality means: Each packet is created equal, and has to be handled equally. And that includes independency of source and target of the packet.
Net Neutrality isn't supposed to include source/destination, it's supposed to be source/destination. The specific problem that Net Neutrality is meant to solve is that ISPs (Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, etc.) could reduce competition in other markets by intentionally interfering with data from services such as Netflix or YouTube in order to drive people towards services owned by the ISP.
Things like throttling high-usage customers and false advertising suck, but those aren't the problems that Net Neutrality is meant to solve.
Like the ridiculous conspiracy theory that the Republicans were working with the Russians. If they were, why this hacking attempt?
Is there any reason to believe that these attacks were intended to somehow influence voters? Based on the summary, it looks like nothing more than a typical attempt to get passwords from people.
I don't think I really disagree with you in terms of what we should do. Maybe I'm misreading it, but I don't think that at least the second poster that you replied to disagrees either. I'm not quite certain about the OP; maybe they only disagree on exactly how effective just planting trees would be.
The way I've read the posts, the term "techno salvation" is being used to describe people who don't think they need to do anything to fix the problem because they assume (i.e. have faith) that some scientist in the future will come up with a way fix the problem, especially a solution that requires no effort from the average person. Our current society should be working on solving the problem, including through the use of new technology. If society keeps assuming that some new invention in the future will fix the problem, nobody would actually do anything to come up with that new invention.
I think central idea of a "Techno Salvation" proposition is that technology will save us without our having to do anything to actually address the problem.
I think that's an oxymoron, because technology doesn't do anything without us having to do something. All major technological initiatives will have to be payed for, usually out of the public trust, so if you're complaining that people who refuse to recycle or turn their lights off when they aren't in the room because they think fusion power is right around the corner are trying to "not do anything"... well no, they are signing up for much higher individual taxes.
You're misunderstanding a bit. The GP is talking about how people now don't think they have to do anything to address the problem; instead, they assume that there will be some technology in the future that will fix the problem. The issue isn't the decision between, for example, reducing CO2 emissions by using cars less versus using more efficient cars. The issue is when there currently is no such technology, but people assume that it will be invented someday or Real Soon Now (TM). That assumption is what makes it a "faith-based" proposition.
To a certain point, I agree, however, I think there's been a significant rise of opinion pieces that are passed off as 'news'. I also find opinions laced into articles either through manipulative language or statements not backed by facts (and refuted by other news media articles) on a greater frequency than before.
The term "Fake News" isn't supposed to refer to opinion pieces that are passed off as news, it's supposed to refer to "news" stories that are just plain factually not true. "Hillary Clinton is a corrupt Washington political elite insider" is an opinion; "Hillary Clinton ran a child trafficking ring out of the basement of a pizza shop" is fake news. MSNBC and The Wall Street Journal editorial pages are sources of biased opinion; The Onion is fake news, even when they do correctly predict razors with 5 blades.
Imagine if government- and law-sanctioned broadband monopolies disappeared and there were *more of this competition* and you would be imagining capitalism.
You can imagine it all you want, but when the barrier to entry is that high (building a fiber network that covers an entire city is expensive), how many competitors are you really going to get?
Let people set their own valuations, but the valuation is also a public tender for sale at that price.
Forcing someone to sell their home when they aren't planning on moving to a new home is probably not a good idea. You could, however, change your solution to a cap on the allowed sale price when you do sell. If you sell for more than 10% of the assessed value, you get charged back taxes.
It's an interesting idea, though it certainly has some downsides. In some areas, assessed values can rise more than the owner can afford to pay, especially owners that have owned their home for decades. Forcing assessed values to rise even faster could make that problem worse.
"This may surprise you, but GPS in-building penetration is zero."
Only the claim is suprising, because the it's not true in fact as anyone with a cell phone can tell you.
But, your mom's basement may be an edge case.
Not exactly an edge case. I live in an apartment building, as do many people who live in large cities, and I can't get a GPS lock from inside my apartment. It might work fine in a house of wood, drywall, and shingles, but it isn't getting through the concrete in my building.
Is their something in this bill Senator McCain hated/fought against?
Probably not. But when legislation has a person's name in the title, it's usually a major sponsor or champion of that legislation. You don't normally name legislation as a way of honoring or memorializing someone unless they were a victim of something that the legislation attempts to protect against.
What if the government requires the private entity to search the rooms, for "safety?" Are private entities coerced to perform searches by a government entity covered by the 4th Amendment?
In general, yes, a private entity that does something at the request of the government is considered to be part of the government in the context of that something.
Is this the part of the article you're talking about? If so, I've highlighted a couple key points regarding the number.
In the aggregate, Trump said, immigrants in the country illegally are responsible for tens of thousands of crimes. He pointed to a 2011 study by the Government Accountability Office which estimated undocumented immigrants had committed some 25,000 homicides, 42,000 robberies and nearly 70,000 sex offenses. That estimate was extrapolated from a survey of 1,000 undocumented immigrants held in state and federal prisons. It offered no time frame in which the crimes might have been committed and no basis for comparison with the native-born population.
The article also cites a study that says that illegal immigrants in Texas were less likely to be convicted of homicide, sexual assault, or larceny than native citizens.
...for cars and homes, I'm all for it. But the prices seem to keep going up and up. When will they become commodities?
Cars became commodities decades ago, so now you're mostly just seeing the prices increase alongside inflation.
If by "homes" you mean purchase of an existing house, then what you're really talking about is purchasing the land, not the structure itself, and that is by definition not a commodity.
...but wouldn't it be cool to come hone, slam your phone into a dock and have a mouse, a keyboard and a couple monitors linked to that dock, complete with Internet access, LAN access, etc.
Motorola did that about 8 years ago, but it never really took off. With the CPU and RAM improvements since then, I wonder if anyone will give it another shot.
If we are talking about the political power of your elected officials, it's absolutely what it means. I think people keep shuffling around the definition of disenfranchisement which causes issues.
Yeah, there are several slightly different definitions. That's why I tried to limit it to just the value of a single vote.
Let's say New York imposes a federal tariff on all maple syrup being shipped out of Maine to the advantage of their own maple syrup producers. With direct, proportional representation, what would be Maine's recourse?
The Constitution explicitly forbids that, so the recourse would be the Supreme Court.
Let's move into modern times. Lets say Texas doesn't want any other state to be allowed to draw water from the Rio Grande. Or California wants to build a pipeline to pull water out of the Great Lakes. Are those fair proposals? With proportional representation, how would aggrieved states be able to block those proposals?
These are not scenarios that were considered 250 years ago. At the time, you could more or less take whatever water flowed through your property without regard to people downstream.
What about the inverses of your proposals? Should Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota be allowed to band together and build a pipeline to pipe all of the water out of Washington?
One possible general solution to those scenarios is to prohibit laws that target specific states in the way you described. You could argue that such laws should be considered bills of attainder, which are already prohibited by the Constitution. Of course, no solution is perfect. If there's a proposal with two choices, with 55% of the population favoring one choice and 45% favoring the other choice, one of those two groups has to get their way, regardless of what voting system you use.
Slashdot Mirror
Net Neutrality means: Each packet is created equal, and has to be handled equally. And that includes independency of source and target of the packet.
Net Neutrality isn't supposed to include source/destination, it's supposed to be source/destination. The specific problem that Net Neutrality is meant to solve is that ISPs (Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, etc.) could reduce competition in other markets by intentionally interfering with data from services such as Netflix or YouTube in order to drive people towards services owned by the ISP.
Things like throttling high-usage customers and false advertising suck, but those aren't the problems that Net Neutrality is meant to solve.
Like the ridiculous conspiracy theory that the Republicans were working with the Russians. If they were, why this hacking attempt?
Is there any reason to believe that these attacks were intended to somehow influence voters? Based on the summary, it looks like nothing more than a typical attempt to get passwords from people.
I don't think I really disagree with you in terms of what we should do. Maybe I'm misreading it, but I don't think that at least the second poster that you replied to disagrees either. I'm not quite certain about the OP; maybe they only disagree on exactly how effective just planting trees would be.
The way I've read the posts, the term "techno salvation" is being used to describe people who don't think they need to do anything to fix the problem because they assume (i.e. have faith) that some scientist in the future will come up with a way fix the problem, especially a solution that requires no effort from the average person. Our current society should be working on solving the problem, including through the use of new technology. If society keeps assuming that some new invention in the future will fix the problem, nobody would actually do anything to come up with that new invention.
Correlation is not causation.
But it does waggle its eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively while mouthing 'look over there'.
I think central idea of a "Techno Salvation" proposition is that technology will save us without our having to do anything to actually address the problem.
I think that's an oxymoron, because technology doesn't do anything without us having to do something. All major technological initiatives will have to be payed for, usually out of the public trust, so if you're complaining that people who refuse to recycle or turn their lights off when they aren't in the room because they think fusion power is right around the corner are trying to "not do anything"... well no, they are signing up for much higher individual taxes.
You're misunderstanding a bit. The GP is talking about how people now don't think they have to do anything to address the problem; instead, they assume that there will be some technology in the future that will fix the problem. The issue isn't the decision between, for example, reducing CO2 emissions by using cars less versus using more efficient cars. The issue is when there currently is no such technology, but people assume that it will be invented someday or Real Soon Now (TM). That assumption is what makes it a "faith-based" proposition.
To a certain point, I agree, however, I think there's been a significant rise of opinion pieces that are passed off as 'news'. I also find opinions laced into articles either through manipulative language or statements not backed by facts (and refuted by other news media articles) on a greater frequency than before.
The term "Fake News" isn't supposed to refer to opinion pieces that are passed off as news, it's supposed to refer to "news" stories that are just plain factually not true. "Hillary Clinton is a corrupt Washington political elite insider" is an opinion; "Hillary Clinton ran a child trafficking ring out of the basement of a pizza shop" is fake news. MSNBC and The Wall Street Journal editorial pages are sources of biased opinion; The Onion is fake news, even when they do correctly predict razors with 5 blades.
Imagine if government- and law-sanctioned broadband monopolies disappeared and there were *more of this competition* and you would be imagining capitalism.
You can imagine it all you want, but when the barrier to entry is that high (building a fiber network that covers an entire city is expensive), how many competitors are you really going to get?
Actually, the researchers agreed and, in fact, recommended that all smokers should switch to vaping immediately.
Somehow, that part didn't make it to the headline.
But it was the second sentence in the quoted part of the article. There's a limit to how long headlines can be.
You looked way too hard. Here.
Let people set their own valuations, but the valuation is also a public tender for sale at that price.
Forcing someone to sell their home when they aren't planning on moving to a new home is probably not a good idea. You could, however, change your solution to a cap on the allowed sale price when you do sell. If you sell for more than 10% of the assessed value, you get charged back taxes.
It's an interesting idea, though it certainly has some downsides. In some areas, assessed values can rise more than the owner can afford to pay, especially owners that have owned their home for decades. Forcing assessed values to rise even faster could make that problem worse.
"This may surprise you, but GPS in-building penetration is zero." Only the claim is suprising, because the it's not true in fact as anyone with a cell phone can tell you. But, your mom's basement may be an edge case.
Not exactly an edge case. I live in an apartment building, as do many people who live in large cities, and I can't get a GPS lock from inside my apartment. It might work fine in a house of wood, drywall, and shingles, but it isn't getting through the concrete in my building.
Is their something in this bill Senator McCain hated/fought against?
Probably not. But when legislation has a person's name in the title, it's usually a major sponsor or champion of that legislation. You don't normally name legislation as a way of honoring or memorializing someone unless they were a victim of something that the legislation attempts to protect against.
Cheeto wouldn't even use the proper name of the bill. He dropped Senator McCain's name from it when referencing the bill...he's a child.
Was Senator McCain involved with writing the legislation? Did Senator McCain push more than normal for this particular legislation?
"Congress approved $1.56 billion for three littoral combat ships, even though the Navy only requested one."
That should be the response whenever anyone talks about how Congress should specify all regulations instead of leaving it up to experts in an agency.
Democrat party wants free rain for terrorists
Are you suggesting we should make them pay for all of their rain instead?
What if the government requires the private entity to search the rooms, for "safety?" Are private entities coerced to perform searches by a government entity covered by the 4th Amendment?
In general, yes, a private entity that does something at the request of the government is considered to be part of the government in the context of that something.
What you're describing (losing interests you don't protect) only works with copyrights.
Trademarks, not copyrights.
How many cores do you need for facebook, yahoo mail and netflix? /s
With current web browsers, at least 8. </obligatory>
Illegal immigrants — the overwhelmingly vast majority of them from South America...
This page lists all of South America at 6%. Mexico is 56%, which certainly isn't an "overwhelmingly vast majority", and Central America at 15%.
...have killed far more Americans over the years, than the 3000 killed on the day of 9/11.
Is this the part of the article you're talking about? If so, I've highlighted a couple key points regarding the number.
In the aggregate, Trump said, immigrants in the country illegally are responsible for tens of thousands of crimes. He pointed to a 2011 study by the Government Accountability Office which estimated undocumented immigrants had committed some 25,000 homicides, 42,000 robberies and nearly 70,000 sex offenses. That estimate was extrapolated from a survey of 1,000 undocumented immigrants held in state and federal prisons. It offered no time frame in which the crimes might have been committed and no basis for comparison with the native-born population.
The article also cites a study that says that illegal immigrants in Texas were less likely to be convicted of homicide, sexual assault, or larceny than native citizens.
Are you arguing that fraud is used more by certain political parties than by others?
When you go to work and put in your hours, you are not risking any money. You will get paid. 100% chance.
Unless you're working on a construction project for Trump.
...for cars and homes, I'm all for it. But the prices seem to keep going up and up. When will they become commodities?
Cars became commodities decades ago, so now you're mostly just seeing the prices increase alongside inflation.
If by "homes" you mean purchase of an existing house, then what you're really talking about is purchasing the land, not the structure itself, and that is by definition not a commodity.
...but wouldn't it be cool to come hone, slam your phone into a dock and have a mouse, a keyboard and a couple monitors linked to that dock, complete with Internet access, LAN access, etc.
Motorola did that about 8 years ago, but it never really took off. With the CPU and RAM improvements since then, I wonder if anyone will give it another shot.
I don't see anything in the Bible saying that it is wrong to tamper with DNA.
It isn't in the ten commandments...
Side note: there are many more than 10 commandments in the Torah. The generally accepted count is 613.
If we are talking about the political power of your elected officials, it's absolutely what it means. I think people keep shuffling around the definition of disenfranchisement which causes issues.
Yeah, there are several slightly different definitions. That's why I tried to limit it to just the value of a single vote.
Let's say New York imposes a federal tariff on all maple syrup being shipped out of Maine to the advantage of their own maple syrup producers. With direct, proportional representation, what would be Maine's recourse?
The Constitution explicitly forbids that, so the recourse would be the Supreme Court.
Let's move into modern times. Lets say Texas doesn't want any other state to be allowed to draw water from the Rio Grande. Or California wants to build a pipeline to pull water out of the Great Lakes. Are those fair proposals? With proportional representation, how would aggrieved states be able to block those proposals?
These are not scenarios that were considered 250 years ago. At the time, you could more or less take whatever water flowed through your property without regard to people downstream.
What about the inverses of your proposals? Should Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota be allowed to band together and build a pipeline to pipe all of the water out of Washington?
One possible general solution to those scenarios is to prohibit laws that target specific states in the way you described. You could argue that such laws should be considered bills of attainder, which are already prohibited by the Constitution. Of course, no solution is perfect. If there's a proposal with two choices, with 55% of the population favoring one choice and 45% favoring the other choice, one of those two groups has to get their way, regardless of what voting system you use.