It's really stupid to think in numbers per-person when the problem is an absolute quantity emitted into the atmosphere.

I mean, just look at the data

You emit 1.19% of the total CO2 emitted by all countries. What are larger cuts on your part really going to do?

Australia's numbers are high because you don't have tens of millions of people living in dirt huts. Really want to do that? And the laws repealed were changing the number from what, 17 to 16.75...

Please make it moddable. I want a chainsaw on my wheelchair. Woooo!

Now why would I make WHeX WITHOUT chainsaws!

A chainsaw on every corner. The footrests? Both chainsaws.

And then of course there's the Tow Saw, which is a chainsaw tied to a rope that bounces around randomly as you roll forward.

Wheelchair Hunter eXTreme

You're sitting down. You could even sell wheels that attached to the side of office char armrests... and a gun accessory that tracked position relative to your body to match the virtual version.

Or, a Battlezone clone where you are in an open cockpit.

Definitely worth his severance to get him out of Nokia and back to Microsoft. Says a lot when a company's stock goes up on news that the CEO is leaving. Now if he could only have the same level of success at Microsoft as he had at Nokia.

Cheers,
Dave

BINGO!!!!!!!

I win. Too bad a bunch of ex-Nokia folks and Microsofties had to lose though.

Cheers,
Dave

Verizon can afford more lawmakers than you.

That's not an answer though. It's a description of the problem.

The reality is: they don't seem to care. If you want them to care, shouldn't you try to understand why they don't?

I know. So a different answer might be to break up the monopolies and tell local governments that they can't make long term monopoly deals any more.

It's not good in either case. We should head in the other direction.

Verizon can afford more government friends than you can. Do you honestly foresee a time when they won't? If not, maybe you shouldn't want things to be decided based on who has more government friends?

Perhaps a rule where cable or satellite TV providers are prohibited from operating centralized peering points. If Verizon had to buy their bandwidth from upstream providers, they wouldn't be able to choke L3. And L3 would have to bid against Verizon's upstream providers to get Netflix's business.

Essentially, less economic centralization in the network infrastructure would provide for more opportunities for competitive bidding all along the chain. Everyone would end up with more customer-focused incentives.

This is a different answer. Thanks.

They seem to have very limited interest in what their customers want for Netflix streaming quality. What is their incentive to care?

I covered that with "the government should threaten Verizon and force them to operate the network contrary to Verizon's best interests".

"I want it and my government friends have guns..." Is this the best we can do?

Why should Verizon do the upgrade? Why would they want to? To make Level 3 happy? To make Netflix happy? What is their incentive?

The only answers I've seen for this on Slashdot are:
- the government should threaten Verizon and force them to operate the network contrary to Verizon's best interests,
- the government should seize Verizon's network
- no answer, just crying about how you're entitled to better Netflix video quality

Got anything better?

Boy are you wrong. They very much do. Some 60% of the workforce works for corporations, most of them large. What do you think happens to their job if that corporation isn't profitable?

Furthermore, domestic jobs profit immensely from imports. Tell me, how many countries have companies as big as Microsoft, Intel, Google, Apple, AMD, nVidia, and Facebook? Oh, that's right, not many. Guess what else? These companies would never make it without being able to import goods. In fact one of the reasons they reside in the US and nowhere else is precisely because we have so many trade agreements that have removed exactly the kind of barriers that you advocate.

They fall with tariffs, if that's what you mean. Again, look at what happened as a result of Smoot-Hawley, which ironically was a republican move, and the likes which of Al Gore was pointing at when republicans opposed NAFTA.

Which Roosevelt would that be? Because FDR AND Truman both instituted policies to counteract Smoot-Hawley; that is, they gradually repealed all of those tariffs. Shockingly enough, only very very recent democrats are in favor of high tariffs, and their reasons for doing so are very poorly thought out.

No, but if it removes insulin resistance even temporarily then it can improve the hell out of their lives and dramatically reduce morbidity. Even taking that treatment once a day would be much better than dealing with the constant finger pricks, injections, and constantly having to be careful about what you eat (and I'm not talking about sugary foods, which are obvious and easy to avoid, but rather the glycemic load in other foods that are very much not obvious.)