I get one bar on my hotspot where I am, and I get about 35mbit down and 18mbit up.
No, they're not. They are allowed to claim that they offer "broadband" to any area their LTE network is available.
It's purely about ratings. That's it. It's not politics, climate change, incompetence. It is willful stretching of the weather models to generate more severe predictions, and hence more ratings. And, I would not be surprised to learn that makers of emergency supplies provided incentives to weather forecasters to predict more extreme weather.
The simplest explanation tends to be the correct one. The simplest explanation for everything is money.
Indeed, the Bill of Rights is an enumeration of basic human rights that are to be protected for everyone, not just US Citizens. This nuance seems to be lost in the halls of government, though.
If you are on American soil, regardless of your Nation of Citizenship, you are entitled to have your basic human rights protected.
The FCC presently defines broadband as 4Mbps down and 1Mbps up, a definition that hasn't changed since 2010. By comparison, people in Sweden can pay about $40 a month for 100/100 mbps, choosing between more than a dozen competing providers. The FCC is under mandate to determine whether broadband is being deployed to Americans in a reasonable and timely way, and the commission must take action to accelerate deployment if the answer is negative. Raising the definition's speeds provides more impetus to take actions that promote competition and remove barriers to investment, such as a potential move to preempt state laws that restrict municipal broadband projects.
"I work in a cosmology department."
That's pretty cleverly-worded there. You could be a sophomore year co-op student, or a janitor for all we know. You've made an appeal to authority (fallacy) on an incredibly vague claim of authority, and then supported your argument with Internet comics.
Wait a minute. How was APD already there to search for bombs? Their standard crime response time is at least two weeks.
Let's just enforce existing laws and get dangerous drivers off the road. THERE IS NO RIGHT TO DRIVE. If you are a dangerous driver you can and should be taken off the road.
A coworker of mine was hit a couple of weeks ago by a woman who, after fleeing the scene, was discovered to have had caused FOUR injury accidents in the trailing 12 months, had been dropped from her insurance two months prior, and who, despite all of that, had not had her license suspended, and was not even ticketed for leaving the scene of the accident she caused with my coworker.
It's our complete unwillingness to hold people accountable for their actions that has created the need for EVAN M0AR government regulation to "protect us from ourselves."
People who are incapable of driving shouldn't be driving. Period.
Yes, it is, at least in some places.
AT&T has a 150GB cap on DSL and UVERSE, while our local cable company has a 250GB cap on their DOCSIS Internet.
Jupiter is not a star.
HAHA I never thought of that, but yes I think that is somewhat funny.
And, it could tow a collection of boats if it wanted to. It's good for something like 9000lbs.
It's when the RPMs shoot up momentarily between shifts because the transmission, for whatever reason, is not completing the shift quickly enough. Usually it can be traced down to either a pressure problem (as in the famous defective-by-design Ford 6F35 transmission) or a computer adaptation misstep (the adaptive algorithms have learned something bad).
I am thankful for the tach in my Armada when I am towing my boat. A tach also gives a visual indication of slippage, flare, and other problems that are increasingly common in today's junky automatic transmissions.