In general, at least in the past. The problem with Satellite internet is that you have like dial-up upload paired with huge/normal broadband down. I think, actually, in general you do not get a transmitter, you literally rely on dailup to contact your ISPs servers, who then transmit their response down to you through the satellite. It is possible that the power, expense, and feasibility of a single satellite receiving a million concurrent transmissions, has been solved with advances in technology. But I could easily imagine that a few of these limitations still existed.

So we can have Internet content beamed at us to consume.

Yo can get satellite Internet right now, it is available everywhere. And is perfectly fine if you view the Internet as a sort of alternative TV where distributors provide content for your consumption.

Is probably my favourite entry in the series. There I said it.

Well we all know how much your opinion is worth then. The only thing possibly worse than Prometheus would of been the the suggested sequel to Gladiator, but then I doubt Ridley would of had anything to do with that.

I have learned this the hard way so please take heed;

NB! most of the guides online have the syntax (order of wording) wrong for pf.conf included the beloved OBSD FAQ.
This is accurate and works on OBSD v5.6
99% of the online howto & guides will get your firewall almost working.

Use this as an example from my working pf.conf

pass in log on egress inet proto { tcp, udp } to $pub_ip port { ssh } rdr-to $workstation

You can spot the variables. Use 'LOG' for all of your entries and keep a "tcpdump -nettti em0 host 192.168.0.x" running while testing your setup.

How so? If you could mathematically tell what was in a competitors hand, and how they would act based on spimuli, by reverse engineering the perfect playing algorithm, then you would know when your substandard hand was infact better than his current hand, or when your great hand was infact worse than his hand. Meaning you could loose a little when you were beat, and you would know exactly when bluffing would win you a hand, and you would know exactly how to get the most out of them when you had a winning hand. It would pretty close to impossible to loose to someone like that.

Actually playing the game by the rules is probably less than 10% of the actual game in profession poker. Often pots are won by the weaker of two hands. Real professionals can guess with uncanny accuracy what other players hands are, and know when a bluff can pay off more than playing to the odds of whatever hand you were dealt. And the betting amount is as important as anything. Sometime you use it to bluff, sometimes you try and pretend you don't really have much to try and get other to up their bets. All of this requires loads of physiology, and watching and knowing their opponents. And in fact, if a player was restrained to always play his hand perfectly mathematically correct, and an opponent guesses this, he would then have a incredibly huge advantage. Unless human psychology is also a solved problem, then this AI is no where close to being a perfect player.

Funny this comes up now when the dems don't have power.
Oh well... likely their sponsors don't really like net neutrality either, but they can toss a bone to the electorate who cares and say... see we did something.

Who says you need skill or training to carry around a gun.

Damn right. How could they have missed the entire paragraph dedicated to the neighborhood-wide ban on lifesize tardis's.

mod up .... made me snort

Perhaps he might think of a better way to spend his time if he thinks nobody should publish his name.
How are the people to know what government officials are doing/saying/thinking if a newspaper or anyone else can't attach a name to a piece about them?

"And it isn't a scientific hypothesis, so any definition of proof per scientific terminology is moot."

Science and scientific method is never moot when one is studying any issue in my view. The truth is there to discover if a good enough method to crack the enigma is there.
A scientific hypothesis is merely a question put under scrutiny. The hypothesis in this case is that more guns equals fewer deaths. I would have to disagree that this is moot as a scientific question. Anything can be put under scientific scrutiny with scientific methodology. That is how most studies including those related to guns and violence are conducted.
But I would further say that up until now there hasn't seemed to be an easy way to answer the questions surrounding this complicated issue. There are so many variables to control for. People use statistics to illustrate their points, but these points are largely moot at this stage without better designed ways of looking at this complex issue. Certainly using a data set with 2 points and no controls is not a way to find out much of anything most of the time.

I find it especially interesting that republicans removed funding for the CDC's research into guns and violence. I suppose if we remain in the dark regarding these questions and keep the issue from scientific scrutiny, we can continue to debate blindly ad nauseum.

For now we are stuck with people finding spurious correlations from data sets to disagree with each other on. It seems plain that most people on both sides of the political argument are not really interested in anything but fodder for their political ambitions. Truth is not really what they are seeking.

"Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."
George Orwell

"I'm merely pointing out that this is more akin to a debate scenario"
Ah, I understand better where you are coming from.

"You can't just say, well it's statistical data so you're probably wrong and then dismiss the claim."
That isn't what I was trying to do. I never meant to say that statistical data is likely wrong and therefore can be dismissed. What I was saying that proof usually has something more concrete than merely someone picking out a data set and then applying graphs that would seem to indicate what they believe is right. Trying to make a one factor correlation when things are much more complex multifactorial and interrelated things seems to me to likely to end up with false conclusions. I read recently that Statistics are like a Drunk seeking a lamppost for support rather than illumination. I found this to be a rather fitting synopsis.

My disputing the OP’s proof lies in the fact that it may likely be a misuse of statistics and therefore invalid. To support my supposition perhaps I was not very clear. It is the OP's position it would seem that more guns = fewer murders based upon the data set chosen. The OP further uses a statistical chart to make the point. So then, the central question becomes does this correlation actually exist or is it some brand of false causality.

From the Wiki:
When a statistical test shows a correlation between A and B, there are usually six possibilities:

A causes B.
B causes A.
A and B both partly cause each other.
A and B are both caused by a third factor, C.
B is caused by C which is correlated to A.
The observed correlation was due purely to chance.

Merely because one can find an apparent correlation in a random data set does not mean that the data set is a proof that the one thing leads to another. Since the supposed proof of the OP is based upon a simple 2 factor correlation then the fact that there are other options in interpretation means that the Proof is not really a Proof, but merely an interpretation which may or may not be valid. Certainly there can be no conclusion drawn from spurious correlation other than to point to the fact that further and more specific studies or data would need to be done regarding the question.

As an example of why this actually needs to further illumination I found these other ridiculous spurious correlations to illustrate my point.
http://www.tylervigen.com/

Things can be shown on charts which have no bearing on reality.

Semantics?
That is simply a way of defining what is being discussed.

"Someone says more guns less deaths. Another asks for proof. First person provides proof. It's then on the second person to disprove them."
The question is whether the first person's proof is worthy of questioning important. What exactly is proof in this case?
Is the first person's proof actually a proof or something entirely different.
If it is not proof, does anyone need to disprove such a thing?
Can there truly be a proof in this case? Has anyone designed a well run study on this subject with tight controls or are they just manipulating wide open date with lots of different uses to make their own point politically.?

What happens when a purported truth might be or might not true?
What is the proof?
Do More Guns = Less deaths?
Is the result of less deaths equivalent to more guns?
Are fewer deaths related to more guns or related to something else?
Are more guns related to other factors which could lead to fewer deaths?
Are more guns and less death entirely unrelated?

Given the data that we currently have it seems that such an assertion of proof may be less about proof and more about backing up a point of view.
Questioning assertions is a perfectly valid way of defining what we are talking about.
Being flippant about the idea of what "Proof" is a distraction.

One can make the same argument that more gun laws equals less violence.
However this also uses the same shoddy understanding of data that saying more guns equals less violence uses.