No, don't have a monopoly run it. But also don't require every ISP to lay their own fiber. Do what they do in Sweden. And no, it is not some communist/socialist monopoly. They have a single entity lay the fiber, but then let many, commercial, ISPs compete to provide the service over the fibers. It works great and is less expensive than what we have here. And Sweden is not that densely populated.
Yes, I am worried about the entity (whether it is gov't or a regulated commercial entity) that lays the fibers getting out of hand with their tariffs, but overall, it would seem to provide the best opportunity to get the US out of third world status when it comes to internet access.
My kingdom for mod points!!
Scientists don't "believe" period.
Scientists look at the universe of observations and develop models that best describe those observations. If other observations come along, they adjust the model. If the model can be used to develop predictions, they look for those predicted outcomes, and if different outcomes happen, the model is changed.
Evolution is the best model to describe a huge volume of observations about species. Scientists don't "believe" in evolution.
The movies are still DRMed.
This is so incorrect, and I see your are on your way to be modded so that nobody will see this. But I will respond anyway since I don't have mod points today.
Net neutrality does not in any possible way prevent you from buying a faster download speed. You pay commensurate with your connection to the backbone. For example, Google or Netflix pay a lot more than $50/mo to connect to the internet to pump as much into it as they do.
What net neutrality says is that a provider can't cause one source of information to *not* be sent out at the given rate you paid for. So if you paid for a 50 mb/sec connection, and Netflix is pumping bits into the system a terabits/sec (for example), the provider can't arbitrarily send you (i.e. throttle netflix to), the consumer, only 3 mb/sec unless Netflix pays extra. If you paid for 50 mb/sec, you should get 50 mb/sec, not just from select sources.
How people can be against that is beyond me. Maybe because they thought net neutrality is about how you describe it. Which it isn't
You carry the same amount of alcohol whether you carry the dehydrated stuff or a bottle of grain alcohol. Actually, the dehydrated stuff is heavier since you also are carrying the polysaccharide to which the alcohol is adsorbed.
If you want to get drunk in the woods, you need the millions of molecules of C2H5OH which weighs the same no matter if you bring it in pure (well, the 95% azeotrope probably) or adsorbed to sugar.
Right. Because chanting "you can hang them from a tree" is more or less equivalent to calling a white person a cracker.
Note, the above is sarcasm, which usually doesn't come through on the internet.
I was thinking about this the other day. I tend to wonder if it would make sense to completely immunize companies from lawsuits over failure to provide adequate steps to prevent a terrorist and state-sponsored attacks as long as they comply with any direct government instructions and regulations.
The US used to do something like this, specifically cover insurance over a specific (high) limit in the case of a terrorist attack. But it was just killed by a single republican member in Congress: Congressional Roadblock Upends Market for Terrorism Insurance even after it was passed 93-4 by the Senate and 417-7 in the house.
Exactly. The purpose of the assignment wasn't to get some code to work. It was to learn how to develop an algorithm.
I'm not a CS person, but rather a chemical engineer. When I was in college, we learned, and had to do, all sorts of distillation designs using McCabe-Theil diagrams and other hand and graphical calculations. Would we ever do this at our job? No, there are all sorts of computer programs that figure these things out. However, going through the process of doing the work the hard way, and more importantly redoing the work that other people have already done, makes us understand the principles behind the logic. It also helps for giving insight if and when we want to extend the thinking to some new area.
Talking about how things are reused in one's job is completely missing the mark.
Who said each company would be limited to 1/20 of the wire's bandwidth. This is capitalism. If a company can provide internet service for a low price with great uptime, people will flock to them and they will use more of the wire. Since there is a low barrier to entry, some other firm who may be able to figure out an event cheaper, more reliable way to supply yuo with your bits, then they are going to be the one sending most of the bits down the wire.
And in case you haven't heard, with cable internet, your bandwidth is already being limited by your neighbor's usage. It wouldn't matter whether "centurylink" or "comcast" was sending those bits down the wire.
That's not true. The wire still handles the same number of bits. It is just different suppliers feeding them into the upstream end of the pipe.
Slashdot just had a story on how this works wonders in Sweden. And if you don't want to click, I'll provide the spoiler: it's not socialist/communist. The internet suppliers are all private companies. It's only the last mile that is owned by city.
Google books is different. The content provided by google books is specifically just a portion of each book. That way they are covered by "fair use" by only showing parts of the book. If they scanned and uploaded the entire book, then it would be copyright infringement.
This is a dumb regulation, but if you RTFA, it is not a permit for "taking pictures". It is a permit for doing news reporting, including photography/viedography, within wilderness areas.
The average hiker taking photos is subject to this regulation. So for example, the comments about Ansel Adams above don't apply.
But still a stupid regulation.
Well, what if they pass a law saying that Redpill82 has to pay one million dollars in taxes a year? The government could pass allowing what you fear whether or not net neutrality exists. So I fail to see how your fear is an argument against net neutrality.