Possible but unrealized.

What judges ruled was that the FCC couldn't regulated the ISPs because the ISPs weren't classified under Title II. The judges did not rule on whether classifying the ISPs under Title is actually legal. The latter is part of the cases that will be brought up over the next couple years.

Crackpot.

It's not even diagnosis. That implies you have an issue. It's predicting what sort of ailments are likely to befall someone based on astrology.

Comcast and Verizon never throttled Netflix and the evidence that was put up to show that throttling occurred combined with Level 3's response to Verizon indicated exactly what was going on. The links were just congested and that's the problem.

Actual throttling is easy to prove intentional throttling. Putting it into place is enough to show intent. Congestion is a whole different beast and you need to get into a very nuanced reading of the regulations to see what intentional means and whether it would even apply in these situations. My gut feeling is that it won't because the traffic is being pushed to them which would mean the regulations are useless at preventing the sort of "throttling". Comcast isn't charging Netflix $1,000,000 to not have their stuff throttled. They're charging Netflix $1,000,000 to have a direct access to their network.

The only reason you wouldn't ship it to the west coast is if you lack ports capable of servicing the tankers and I'm talking the depth of the ports and not whether you have the facilities themselves since the latter can be built up at the same time that the pipeline is being built.

People here look at the functional benefit of e-readers without realizing the intangible benefit of paper books. It has nothing to do with the books themselves. The fact that you're reading a book is mostly a mild diversion to the true purpose of reading a book, which is to get laid. Just like everything involving getting laid, the book is a prop that demonstrates certain things about you and given some of the more common traits among millenials these days the right type of book can set you heads above others. This is a drastic change from the past because things associated with being a nerd or intelligent weren't always as highly prized in the past but such things are now considered in vogue.

To a woman, reading a book gives you a sense of aloofness and makes you appear disarmed and less threatening which is good in a society where we seem to be constantly bombarded with men being predators. The construction style of the book (hardcover vs paperback) is one of the indicators they can use to identify your financial stability. People also know that hard covers take more space so if you do keep multiple books and prefer hardcover, a fact you should bring up, it's going to indicate taht you have the space to own and keep multiple hardcover copies, again another financial indicator. The type of book (nonfiction vs fiction) can further reinforce the security of your character. Reading a hardcover of Song of Fire and Ice isn't as good as reading a hardcover version of War and Peace but reading a paperback copy of War and Peace, if that even exists, is still better than reading a hardcover of Song of Fire and Ice. Reading a non-fiction book that is current politcal topic is usually a bad idea. You're going to alienate some women if their political views diverge from the book regardless of your personal views. So I would recommend avoid taking any books on a political figure that has been actived since about 1980. Most of the political figures from before 1980 aren't significant enough factors that ostracize millenials. I'm sure these other advantages that I'm missing but those are just the more obvious signs that can be picked up from books.

e-Readers provide none of these benefits. At best you might get the financially stable bit because you purchased the device but the ebooks themselves are equivalent to paperback in the monetary value of hardcovers is simply not present. Though I really just look at how many women have ended up in my arms because of hard cover books and e-readers and I can say that based on my experience the hard cover book is vastly superior.

Yeah! It's just like how Ratman's scribbling goes on and on and on and on about the cake being a lie. Then there's a fucking cake.

Well, having talked with a number of people who are divorced with children I found two interconnected central themes to most of them. Money and stress. Two young people dating living a high life because both have their own incomes, then they get married and within two years a child is born. The mother, typically, stops working to care for the child and then another child comes along a bit later. This eventually stretches out into 7-10 years where the family has gone from living high as DINKs to adding three dependents (1 adult, 2 children) onto a single income. Often times the extended vacation from working is justified under the pretense of "day care is just as expensive" and "let's me stay home with the kids". Which is fine but the motiviation for the parent that quit to seek out new work 7-10 years later once daycare shouldn't be needed and the children are more capable can be significantly sapped. Thus, try going from a high lifestyle to sustaining a lower lifestyle while a lot of your financial plans are pushed back and delayed and see how much stress you undergo and that stress is partially caused by the non-working spouse.

Self-insurance is a concept.

Primarily because the poster in question used the phrase "radiation poisoning". He dropped a line about similarities to Gulf War Syndrome then doubled down on the radiation poisoning by later discussing the long half-life of uranium. I have seen numerous posters who will readily admit that ingesting or otherwise having uranium inside the body is toxic and poisoning. It's a heavy metal and like other heavy metals that's not good for the body but it's not radiation poisoning. He may have a valid point regarding heavy metal toxicity, not that he would have recognized that was what he was talking about, but it's lost in a bunch of lunatic nonsense.

1. The natural counter to a submarine is cheap mass produced surface vessels specifically tasked with anti-sub duty. There's be scarcely few, 1 in fact, kills where an underwater submarine killed another underwater submarine. The predominate number of submarine on submarine kills during WW2 were surface to surface or underwater to surface in which the target killed was on the surface making it's sole difference from any other surface vessels its low profile.

2. The B-52 mission the US flew to Iraq requires two mid-air refuelings which meant it required a friendly base for the air-tanker to launch from where the B-52 could have launched from in the first place.

I thought they were all singing Louie Louie in an attempt to sound like a bunch of drunk fishermen.

A 16" Mark VII turret cost $1.4m to install which I cannot tell if that's adjusted for inflation or the cost in the 1940s. The guns themselves were probably at least $200,000 apiece so the total turret + gun combination was probably around $2-2.5m in sunk costs. Each projectile costs about $10,000 to produce (according to a 1999 GAO report I found). Cruise missiles will always be far more expensive than artillery fire.

The battleship class would need a signficant relook but I have a feeling that direct long range fire provided by guns and turrets is obsolete. I could see the battleship revived as a new class with large gun turrets removed and the ship's direct fire capable handed over to cruise missiles (more compact) and having the ship bristle with CIWS or other anti-air systems.

I would also expect such a ship to have its belt and underwater armed strengthed and see these vessels being close escorts for carriers.