these subsidies require that the deployed services be able to provide speeds of at least 10 Mbps down.
And what's the monthly data limit?
No, the ads just move out of ad spaces into 'native' space, embedded with content and interspersed into feeds and streams.
Or the adverts become articles, with no indication that they are sponsored. One newspaper website that I read has a "monthly limit" (not effective when you use private browsing) of 10 pages. But even after this limit is reached, some articles can still be read. I assume that the the newspaper is receving payment when someone reads the article. However, there is nothing to indicate that the article is an ad, or sponsored.
This is why I am not on board with the idea of https everywhere. Recently, I started seeing obviously malware ads in the middle of Words With Friends (OK, maybe Words with Friends is malware!!). Configuring my squid proxy, I was able to block not only the site that was serving the ads (gaseview.com), but also the ad network that I think was providing the links to the malware ads (mopub.com).
With https everywhere it is much more difficult to block such ads.
conservatives think that government is dangerous:
It is, to some people. For example, with more funding, the IRS could cut down on tax fraud and increase tax revenues by far more than the cost of employing the additional tax inspectors.
Or the EPA could investigate more violations of and enforce environmental laws, etc, etc..
That's at least part of the "conservative" pitch to reduce government: starve the executive branch of the resources it needs to actually enforce the law.
Either regulate UBER just like you would the competing service, in this case a Taxi service,
That's the point, though, isn't it? What does Uber really compete with? Uber is most like a private hire/limo service. Other private hire/limo services compete with taxis to some extent, but not as much as Uber. What has happened is that Uber has devised a mechanism to make private hire/limo services far more usable.
Let me suggest tht you add another domain, which earlier today was serving ads that in my opinion are malicious:
The Constitution does not say "firearms." It says "arms."
You actually think that SCOTUS is bound by the literal text of the Constitution. How naive of you.
Users don't want a text editor. They want a program like Word or *Office Writer.
This is complete BS. My guess is that the person who spearheaded the Linux migration has left and now the remaining IT managers want to go back to what they are comfortable with.
A $1500 MRI in the United States is about $150 elsewhere. Same machine, same cost of living. The excess costs are come from time the machine isn't in use, how much we pay specialists to review the scans and how the machines are generally used as a profit center for providers.
And the kickbacks to doctors to send their patients to a particular MRI center. And, no, I am not joking about this, it's a real thing.
they have malaria "prevention" medicine right now(which as far as I can tell is antibiotics) but its both a) expensive b) unpractical to eat for prolonged periods of time as many people get bad stomach or other problems from eating it(this actually is cause for 'travel stomach' for some people and not the gasoline graded hot food or poor quality food in some places).
There are safe anti-malarial drugs and there are cheap anti-malarial drugs, but they are not the same drugs. Side effects of the cheap drugs can include mental problems (I know someone who got a medical evacuation as a result of severe depression caused by anti-malarial drugs).
A couple of decades ago, I had a short trip after which I sufferred diarrhea which continued for the month after my return and stopped the day I stopped taking the drugs. I lost about 20 pounds in a month.
Mmmh as a non American city I would not want my data to be stored on American servers.
Did you notice that the city is migrating to Office 365, not Office? Apparently not.
Last year (?) a teenager was able to get over the perimeter fence and get on a plane. Later, they announced that they did not have the money to properly secure the fence. Depite this, exactly zero planes have been subject to terrorist attacks in the USA.
What do we infer from this? The risk from terrorists trying to blow up planes in the USA is indistinguishable from zero. I can't be the only person to realize this.
The administration must realize this, yet, they persist with the ridiculous rules about flying. Clearly, the searches, the no-fly-list, etc. have no connection to terrorism. There is some other reason for their existence.
Reasons for the searches, no-fly-list etc.? Money? Control? Something else?
Help me, I'm a prisoner in a Fortune cookie file!