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.

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.

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.

Did they even manager to get the huge lead content under control?

Well did the wright brothers not use pedaling power? but yes, either way the glider comes first.

I know, right, it just came to me right now.

That is one way to explain it. But I would not say that what he says he mean is not evidence either way. I think we can at least be fairly certain that the tweet was not that popular because people love Issac Newton, but because attacks on Christianity are popular. And no matter that he meant, at the time, he took a Jesus phrase, and replace Jesus with Issac Newton. This general idea is a popular way of making fun of people (and he certainly was not trying ot make fun of Issac Newton). I would still say he either mistakenly tweeted something with undercurrents of an attack on christians, or he consciously or subconsciously attacked Christians with that tweet.

neither of those facts make a conscious attack on Christians any more palatable. In fact, using a christian to make fun of Christians if anything is a worse act than using someone who might of like to offend them.

You should when you actually have a better theory instead of just a bias and a bigger ego. Creationists were rightly, and successfully, refuted because there existed a well proven counter theory, evolution. But we do not have anything similar when it comes to what caused the Big Bang, ranting about 14D planes colliding and creating ripples like on a pond, without any idea how those planes existed in the first place does not really strike me as a particularly sane argument. And there is a difference between simply wanting to speak teh truth, and generally trying to change peoples beliefs. Too many scientists go around not says: "no, that isn't exactly rights. You cannot really say that", and instead saying: "No, your are wrong, your religions is wrong. Convert to Atheism or your soul will burn forever in the fires of the big bang"

I disagree. If you analyse his tweet, I believe it is obvious that he chose his wording with care, to specifically try and diminutize Jesus. It would of been easy, and right, to mention that Issac Newton (Right?, I think that was who he was talking about) was born on Christmas day, and that he was a great man who did loads for us. To use wording that imply that he was like unto Jesus, and to replace Jesus in a entrance obviously crafted to talk about him is an obvious attack on Christians.