See, that is what I'm talking about. Do you have an example of "X"? I'm guessing no. Because nobody would ever come back and offer the same thing that was originally presented. They offer something slightly different. So you're just repeating polarized talking points. As long as the masses are believing Obama's talking points (GOP is bad), the Democrats have no incentive to compromise. They can just point fingers and wait until they have a super majority.

Looking at the voting history of Congress, I see the same basic thing regardless of which bill I look at. If the sponsor has a D on their name, all the "R"s vote no. If the sponsor has an R on their name, all the "D"s vote no. Occasionally about 1/2 of one side votes with the other. Overall, their records appear to be the same.

Where did Obama's bailout go? I recall getting a check from Bush's IRS. Haven't seen one from Obama's though...

I don't think I'm one of Bush's Wall Street Buddies...

I still don't get this name calling. Aren't they different parties? Don't they have different views on how to do things? Haven't they always opposed each other?

Aren't the Democrats voting "No" as well on Republican led initiatives?

In short, why is it that side's fault that Congress can't get anything passed? Do you think blaming them makes the process better?

That would be conjecture. Perfectly reasonable and probable (why else would Verizon anger their own customers by restricting Netflix access?), but still a guess.

However, it was not mentioned in Level 3's post. Good network engineers (good problem solvers in any field) would not simplify the issue so much as to make it incorrect by virtue of being incomplete. I think Level 3 is being horribly disingenuous.

Are you being cute? Or dense?

Like any responsible business, Comcast (and Verizon) keep a buffer between what they're capable of doing, and what they're required to do (in terms of providing their services), to account for usage spikes and to be able to acquire new customers.

When the buffer reaches self-defined limits, they increase their total bandwidth until the buffer is acceptable.

Comcast would only have had to do the magic you're implying if they were already at capacity. The only thing that did happen is their buffer took a hit. So now they either have to increase bandwidth or stop acquiring customers, before they can continue.

If allowing all of Level 3's traffic pushes Verizon's bandwidth usage at any point in their system to unacceptable levels, then that part needs to be upgraded as well... which may cost a lot more than a couple network cards.

So, how much traffic is Level 3 pushing? What are the costs to upgrade all of Verizon's weak-points to accommodate the additional traffic? How much do Verizon's customers pay towards that? How much do the peering contracts pay towards that?

Hating Verizon is not enough to answer those questions.

Says who? The same people that made Gaea his mother? The same ones that had him meet himself (Hercules)? I can list 100 things that are not Norse/Roman/Greek myth. I can list even more things that were re-written later in comics to no longer follow Norse/Roman/Greek myth. So picking one particular trait, that just happens to be the sex of the character, and clinging to it like the world will end if anybody doesn't use that particular aspect of the Norse myth in their own fantasy writings, doesn't make sense unless it is misogyny... or you can explain your reasoning behind why that particular trait is immutable and all others can be thrown to the wind.

P.S., it sounds from your post that you think the original Thor actually had a sex change. That didn't happen. Some other human girl picked up his hammer and gained the powers.

How many stories & myths from our history have male warrior leads?
How many stories & myths from our history have female warrior leads?

Inspiration obviously comes from many places. But if you consider the amount of historical & current inspiration available for male characters of this type, and the clear lack of inspiration for female characters, I'd say the male Thor is a better example of lazy pandering.

This change at least bucks the system a bit.

I too have not shared my opinion. I merely pointed out that when something looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... it appears to be a duck. So when a few quacks in this thread were modded up, I decided to try looking under the feathers.

You pointed out the change in the armor as a sign of misogyny by "putting a weakness in the new Thor". When in fact, he went from cloth/latex/whatever his body suit was made of, to armor, however shitty nerds consider that armor to be (their logic is sound, I did not dispute it). But then, wearing latex, instead of actual armor, is "putting a weakness in the old Thor"; also to enhance his masculine features. As I've pointed out, all super heroes get that treatment. So to then complain only when it happens at a change from enhancing masculine features, to enhancing feminine features, it looks like the complainer has a problem with women.

You cited her attire, which by your description serves the same purpose as a feminized cod piece (enhancing and displaying a specific body part), as a negative trait of the new Thor. To both understand why you dislike the feminine display and discount that dislike as simple misogyny, one would also need to understand your viewpoint on similar pieces when used for male characters. That makes it relevant to the discussion, not a trap.

Then you should have mentioned it, instead of focusing on irrelevant attributes. Instead, all that was mentioned was things that further the appearance of misogyny: Thor was a man in myth; her armor doesn't help.

Yea, that is why I responded. I assumed because you weren't AC, you were not one of the modders.

I'm trying to find out why people think Thor being changed to a woman is "Ridiculous". You provided a reason, I offered my counter. Sorry you don't like it. I'll try somewhere else.

It is slowly spreading outside of France.
But if you bring that litigious shit to the US I'll sue you into oblivion.

Like Green Lantern? (p.s., Loki often went about as a woman)

That is misogynist? Are female super heroes supposed to be flat chested? Is there historical context for plate armor built for women? Depicting ideal forms in comics, or any other entertainment, is how it is done. People read comics, or watch movies, or attend plays, to be taken away from reality. Not to be reminded of it.

Btw, how do you feel about codpieces?

A weakness?! The male Thor wore a (latex?) body suit and a helmet. Since when is cloth or latex better than armor, even poorly designed armor, at stopping a weapon?

The misogyny, as pointed out, lies in the double standards being applied to rate the characters. Changing Green Lantern from one guy to an entire corps, with the "original" (the rewritten story included a Chinese Green Lantern predating the original comic character) being made gay, one of the replacements black... all that is ok. Nobody is complaining about Thor being turned into a title. "Thor" now being whoever holds the hammer is apparently fine with everybody. The complaint is not "Thor's character was changed", it is just "Thor is a woman". So far every reason I've seen presented here for not liking the change has been a double standard.

Also noticed on my side of the computer is that every woman I've told about this has said: "Omg that's awesome!"
The complaints have all come from men, here.

I'd browse around for more... but honestly, I'm not inclined to do so considering the single word "Ridiculous!" is considered +5 Insightful with this crowd, while obviously thought-out, intelligent calls for discussion by opposing views are considered trolling. Too many signs its time to leave slashdot.

ssshhh. Adults are talking.

My takeaway is that if your only argument against the change is "Thor was a male", and you cannot come up with a real, valid, logical argument against the change, then most likely, you're misogynist.

If you consider everything else about the mythical Thor that Marvel ignored, one really has to wonder: Why would somebody be so concerned about the character's sex? Is this the very first time an "established character" was changed significantly? Is sex the only significant difference between the mythical Thor & the new (or old) Marvel character? Obviously the myth behind Thor is very significant to the poster since that is the only issue raised... But the myth is not significant enough for the poster to even notice the insanely long list of other discrepancies. Just sex.

So as Geekoid pointed out, there is no difference between the complaints about Thor changing to a girl, and the complaints about any other role that has an established male precedent. Soldiers can't be girls. The President can't be a girl. Thor can't be a girl.

So far, it looks like misogyny.

Hey be nice. In this day & age, PC drones serve a purpose too.

Like the "this is not a food" warnings on the back of spermicidal jelly, they help stupid people to not hurt themselves and others.