Thank you for the explanation.
There is some speculation that the US is going to end up with something like that as well, the Fairness Doctrine.
So there are people that think that there isn't enough American-made content on television? My experience is obviously limited, but other than the occasional Canadian or British comedy show, pretty much everything I've seen on television is American.
Not sure if this is quite what you mean, but in IE7, if you put an XHTML DOCTYPE tag at the top of a page, IE7 will render the page closer to correctly than it does without a DOCTYPE (I assume it renders it in the completely-broken IE6 mode).
I think content is part of it too. If my ISP inserts advertisements into pages, that's not being neutral.
Modifying content as it comes across their wires is just plain wrong, regardless of Net Neutrality. Net Neutrality is exactly one thing: prioritizing traffic based on source and/or destination. The "neutrality" part is in reference to the content provider, not the type of traffic or anything else. Injecting advertisements should be illegal under wiretapping laws, with or without Net Neutrality.
Who the hell in his/her right mind pays for an internet service even remotely related to Time Warner!? This is the internets Satan we're talking about, and not the cool guitar playing kind, but the lawyer without conscience kind.
You clearly never had to deal with Adelphia. And from what I've heard, Comcast is no better (I've never had any real problems with either Time Warner or Comcast). Verizon's DSL was pretty bad the last time I had it, too; multiple tech support people told me that Verizon doesn't block any incoming ports, which was certainly not true.
Net Neutrality to mean one thing and one thing only, agnosticism to packets content
Not just content, but source and destination too.
My impression was that Net Neutrality had absolutely nothing to do with content (which would more accurately be called Quality of Service, i.e. prioritizing HTTP or VOIP traffic over FTP or BitTorrent traffic), but solely with source and destination (e.g. prioritizing Google's HTTP traffic over Yahoo's HTTP traffic).
Unlike other new england/midatlantic states, Pennsylvania's Primary system is restricted by party registration. Democrats voting in the primary can only select who the democrat nominee is, and Republican can only select the republican, and third party selects third party, etc.
Care to cite that? According to this list, Vermont is the only New England state with open primaries, although most states allow independents to select one party at the poll. Most of the states with open primaries are in the south and midwest.
Specter left the Democratic Party in '81 because he lacked seniority for cool appointments. The Republicans were (and have been) desperate enough for a Pennsylvania senate seat that he could write his own checks in the GOP. Now, he's looking at being part of a permanent minority, and the majority party is probably going to give him nicer committee chairs than he could get with the GOP.
It's not a principled stand; it's politics.
Because of course the ideologies of the Republicans and Democrats are as unchanging as any law of physics.
The Republican front-runner is Pat Toomey, lately the president of the right-wing anti-tax extremist group, the Club for Growth. He's further right than Rick Santorum was.
You mean he thinks HIV can be transmitted just by breathing on someone?
then instead of repealing it when they took power the Democrats use it to put Conservative Idealists on a list of possible terrorists.
I would love to see an example of this so that I can laugh at the hypocrites on "the left" just like I laugh at the hypocrites on "the right". Now then, can you provide a real example?
Many Democrats have, however, called for us to pull out of Iraq under conditions that are equivalent (in my, and many other people's opinion) to admitting that we've lost.
So as long as we never say out loud that we lost, it doesn't matter that thousands of American soldiers and tens of thousands (perhaps many tens of thousands) of others have died for no practical gain? Sounds like a Fox News reality to me.
The point being, if Apple had 90% of the market, would they be any better than Microsoft is now? There's certainly enough evidence to think that they would be.
You've then got empaths; people that can sense the mood of a group or a crowd
Except that's easily explained by recognition of facial expression and body movement. You don't have to be an empath, you just have to be observant with a bit of psychology training thrown in.
Telepathy could be explained fairly easily. The brain basically runs on electricity (hence EEG's). Just like in a copper wire, the currents in the brain create an electromagnetic field. In another nearby brain, that electromagnetic field creates a current (pretty sure this would be normal induction; it's been a while since my last E/M class), and the brain can interpret that current. Of course I'm not saying that anyone that claims to be telepathic must be telling the truth, but it seems to me that since it's a relatively simple phenomenon in physics, the idea shouldn't be dismissed as impossible.
It can still do "rmdir/q/s \" without any code-on-disk.
And what antivirus program would stop that? Is that a command that's reasonably expected to be run by some user at some time? If not, where do you draw the line between what a user is and is not allowed to do?
That assumes the RIAA would allow such a thing. Considering they own the President and his cabinet I highly doubt you can expect for this to happen.
Your statement might be relevant if the appeal process involved the president or his cabinet. And no, the fact that the executive appoints federal judges doesn't count as involved.
The reason 9/11 happened isn't because of the bravery of skill or cleverness of the hijackers, it's because of the institutionalized cowardice we've mandated in most 'civilized' countries in response to this.
Except hijacked planes being crashed into buildings had never happened before. In every previous hijacking, the pilots flew the plane to $island_nation and all the passengers got home safely. People "weren't brave" because it would have been stupid, leading to deaths that would not have happened otherwise. The hijacked plane where the passengers learned what was happening is a prime example of what will happen in the future, since the passengers will remember the one time when it wasn't just a bunch of petty criminals trying to get some cash and transportation to another country. Hijacking planes is almost guaranteed to never work again, not because of the security theater, but because the passengers won't let it.
How about we get private corporations to go back to scientific R&D instead of squandering all their money on marketing.... The US could hit 3% of GDP on scientific R&D real quickly if the scientifically oriented corporations would put the 10-20% of their budgets into R&D like they used to.
Yeah, right, as if that'll boost next quarter's profits enough to make the day-traders happy.
Slashdot Mirror
but you can walk in to many, many companies, sit down at an open desk, plug in a laptop
Network security may not be that company's biggest problem.
Thank you for the explanation. There is some speculation that the US is going to end up with something like that as well, the Fairness Doctrine.
So there are people that think that there isn't enough American-made content on television? My experience is obviously limited, but other than the occasional Canadian or British comedy show, pretty much everything I've seen on television is American.
It's also the sux0rz.
You misspelled "teh".
Not sure if this is quite what you mean, but in IE7, if you put an XHTML DOCTYPE tag at the top of a page, IE7 will render the page closer to correctly than it does without a DOCTYPE (I assume it renders it in the completely-broken IE6 mode).
I think content is part of it too. If my ISP inserts advertisements into pages, that's not being neutral.
Modifying content as it comes across their wires is just plain wrong, regardless of Net Neutrality. Net Neutrality is exactly one thing: prioritizing traffic based on source and/or destination. The "neutrality" part is in reference to the content provider, not the type of traffic or anything else. Injecting advertisements should be illegal under wiretapping laws, with or without Net Neutrality.
Who the hell in his/her right mind pays for an internet service even remotely related to Time Warner!? This is the internets Satan we're talking about, and not the cool guitar playing kind, but the lawyer without conscience kind.
You clearly never had to deal with Adelphia. And from what I've heard, Comcast is no better (I've never had any real problems with either Time Warner or Comcast). Verizon's DSL was pretty bad the last time I had it, too; multiple tech support people told me that Verizon doesn't block any incoming ports, which was certainly not true.
Net Neutrality to mean one thing and one thing only, agnosticism to packets content
Not just content, but source and destination too.
My impression was that Net Neutrality had absolutely nothing to do with content (which would more accurately be called Quality of Service, i.e. prioritizing HTTP or VOIP traffic over FTP or BitTorrent traffic), but solely with source and destination (e.g. prioritizing Google's HTTP traffic over Yahoo's HTTP traffic).
Unlike other new england/midatlantic states, Pennsylvania's Primary system is restricted by party registration. Democrats voting in the primary can only select who the democrat nominee is, and Republican can only select the republican, and third party selects third party, etc.
Care to cite that? According to this list, Vermont is the only New England state with open primaries, although most states allow independents to select one party at the poll. Most of the states with open primaries are in the south and midwest.
LOOK! A REPUBLICAN SUPPORTS US! Ignore all the others that stand by their principles.
Yeah, how dare his principles differ from his party's published beliefs.
Specter left the Democratic Party in '81 because he lacked seniority for cool appointments. The Republicans were (and have been) desperate enough for a Pennsylvania senate seat that he could write his own checks in the GOP. Now, he's looking at being part of a permanent minority, and the majority party is probably going to give him nicer committee chairs than he could get with the GOP.
It's not a principled stand; it's politics.
Because of course the ideologies of the Republicans and Democrats are as unchanging as any law of physics.
Instead of trying to push their message with resonable thought, they force it on you with words of communism and "fascism."
Which is really funny, since Fascism and Communism are generally considered to be diametric opposites.
The Republican front-runner is Pat Toomey, lately the president of the right-wing anti-tax extremist group, the Club for Growth. He's further right than Rick Santorum was.
You mean he thinks HIV can be transmitted just by breathing on someone?
The correct term is universal health bureaucracy, there is no care involved.
Yeah, why would anyone want Universal Health Bureaucracy when our current system of Private Health Bureaucracy works so well
then instead of repealing it when they took power the Democrats use it to put Conservative Idealists on a list of possible terrorists.
I would love to see an example of this so that I can laugh at the hypocrites on "the left" just like I laugh at the hypocrites on "the right". Now then, can you provide a real example?
Many Democrats have, however, called for us to pull out of Iraq under conditions that are equivalent (in my, and many other people's opinion) to admitting that we've lost.
So as long as we never say out loud that we lost, it doesn't matter that thousands of American soldiers and tens of thousands (perhaps many tens of thousands) of others have died for no practical gain? Sounds like a Fox News reality to me.
There are hundreds of regimes around the world doing worse. Some of them we even put in power.
You'd think we would have learned by now not to keep putting new regimes in power, just to have them become our Mortal Enemies (TM) 10 years later.
Sigh, that's what I get for just clicking through the preview. That last bit should be "they would not be [any better]."
The point being, if Apple had 90% of the market, would they be any better than Microsoft is now? There's certainly enough evidence to think that they would be.
You've then got empaths; people that can sense the mood of a group or a crowd
Except that's easily explained by recognition of facial expression and body movement. You don't have to be an empath, you just have to be observant with a bit of psychology training thrown in.
Telepathy could be explained fairly easily. The brain basically runs on electricity (hence EEG's). Just like in a copper wire, the currents in the brain create an electromagnetic field. In another nearby brain, that electromagnetic field creates a current (pretty sure this would be normal induction; it's been a while since my last E/M class), and the brain can interpret that current. Of course I'm not saying that anyone that claims to be telepathic must be telling the truth, but it seems to me that since it's a relatively simple phenomenon in physics, the idea shouldn't be dismissed as impossible.
It can still do "rmdir /q /s \" without any code-on-disk.
And what antivirus program would stop that? Is that a command that's reasonably expected to be run by some user at some time? If not, where do you draw the line between what a user is and is not allowed to do?
That assumes the RIAA would allow such a thing. Considering they own the President and his cabinet I highly doubt you can expect for this to happen.
Your statement might be relevant if the appeal process involved the president or his cabinet. And no, the fact that the executive appoints federal judges doesn't count as involved.
They're saying SOMETHING that a judge has apparently decided is so important to keep secret that not even opposing counsel can know about it.
My guess is that it involves blackjack and hookers. Well, maybe they forgot about the blackjack.
Hasn't paper been the primary material in speaker design since, well, since speakers?
Maybe, but I would have thought the designers would be using computers more these days.
The reason 9/11 happened isn't because of the bravery of skill or cleverness of the hijackers, it's because of the institutionalized cowardice we've mandated in most 'civilized' countries in response to this.
Except hijacked planes being crashed into buildings had never happened before. In every previous hijacking, the pilots flew the plane to $island_nation and all the passengers got home safely. People "weren't brave" because it would have been stupid, leading to deaths that would not have happened otherwise. The hijacked plane where the passengers learned what was happening is a prime example of what will happen in the future, since the passengers will remember the one time when it wasn't just a bunch of petty criminals trying to get some cash and transportation to another country. Hijacking planes is almost guaranteed to never work again, not because of the security theater, but because the passengers won't let it.
How about we get private corporations to go back to scientific R&D instead of squandering all their money on marketing.... The US could hit 3% of GDP on scientific R&D real quickly if the scientifically oriented corporations would put the 10-20% of their budgets into R&D like they used to.
Yeah, right, as if that'll boost next quarter's profits enough to make the day-traders happy.