One vote is all that is needed.
Maybe you don't know very many roads.
I believe transparency and competition. The issue with ISPs is the lack of transparency and competition.
I agree, right on.
it's more complex than "yes/no" and there are good arguments on both sides.
I fail to see how forbidding QOS will achieve that.
This is dishonest. You can't simplify what net neutrality means into some point about network providers managing quality of service. QOS can be preserved at the same time as preserving the neutrality of the internet.
You want to adjust quality of service for video and email? Your rules apply to all video, whether it's from Netflix or Youtube. Your rules apply to all email whether it's Gmail or Hotmail.
When the customer's choice in a majority of cases is "shitty internet" and "no internet", then we have no real choice. Without that real choice, many will take the shitty internet over nothing. The company is artificially insulated from market forces and can do as it pleases. That's our current reality.
If I had to give up my internet, it would change my life in a fundamental way, for the worse. I use it for work, for communication with my family, for entertainment, for information, for an infinite number of things that make my life better. The internet is a society changing technology. Profit by exploiting ownership of internet infrastructure should not be allowed, ever. Yes, it should be a government provided service.
But the market!
Just as I am free to travel to any competing business over the public roadways, so should I be free to travel to any competing business on the internet, without impediment. Yes roads vary in quality, so do internet infrastructure, but the decision making on roads is made with the best interest of the community as the guiding light, not profit or competition.
Which 300 scientists would those be? Are you counting every "scientist" listed co-author of every paper cited in that report? I don't think they all support the conclusions of the report, rather selected pieces of their papers are being used to compile this report. If you are going to hyperbolize, don't be surprised when your noble attempt to convince the
I've decided to compile a report on the values trending of President Obama's policies. I have taken selected passages from many of his speeches or sound clips. These conclusions are summarized from well over 100 of his speeches. 100 is a large round number so if you don't support my conclusion you are ignorant. I am a self sacrificing martyr on the alter of wisdom, ignore me at your peril.
I support(1) racism(2) and global warming(3). I approve of(4) having a beer(5). My wife(6) is a jackass(7).
Hey wait, that's not fair is it. I need to re-think this.
Some of the best Google applications came from people's 20% time. Time they were being paid to do unspecific tasks...
We do it for the chicks.
I had actually forgotten that SourceForge even existed until seeing it mentioned here on Slashdot today. Basically, SourceForge is a home for Open Source/*nix/FS zealots who kind of like the idea of open source and want to dabble in it but refuse to leave the comforting confines of their OS of choice. So now, they have somewhere to hang out. It serves the zealot's purposes as it gives them something to hopefully take a little of the wind out of the sails of the Windows stack of software. Personally, I think it a bit absurd to build open source programs and criticize Microsoft for giving people a free place to build Open Source software on top of their OS and platforms of choice.
You could make a case for shouldn't, but that would be irrelevant, since it does.
On the server, RDP uses its own video driver to render display output by constructing the rendering information into network packets by using RDP protocol and sending them over the network to the client
I consulted my daughters "Jesus and You, and Science Too" text book, and it confirms that your post is bunk. Texas has never believed in science.
Is the state of your communication such that you're limited to swearing where clearly it doesn't convey any sense whatsoever other than your own limited vocabulary?
He made a joke. It was topical. It was a non-standard way of answering the first post, designed to induce a comical reaction. The poster communicated his intent very well, precisely because he used a swear word. Your post seems to indicate that you didn't get it.
You also begin a string of ridiculous, prejudiced, unjustified, and redundant assertions and insults directed towards people who use profanity.
Seriously, I've often wondered how people who swear constantly, and use the F-bomb as noun, verb, adverb and pronoun ever communicate anything useful other than their own ignorance and lack of literacy.
People who swear are ignorant and illiterate? Yada yada yammer, more bollox from Archangel_Idiot.
I'm not a prude or anything, I just find that most people who swear all the time have almost nothing useful or interesting to say, or otherwise full of self importance.
This is where your post starts getting funny. Prude: a person who is excessively proper or modest in speech http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prude . You are excessively modest in speech, therefore a prude.
Blah blah more redundant crap about people who swear, but wait! Something new! You weakly defend a perception that you are obviously afraid of being typed with. I'm sorry to report you are too late. Everyone knows what you are now.
They use swearing as some sort of over compensation, trying to sound important, but only coming across as the dimwit they are.
Your final blanket, unsupportable, illogical assumption. How many times do you need to tell us you think people who swear are stupid and useless? We get it. Thank you. I've already dismissed your argument as the ignorant tripe it is, or I'm nodding my head stupidly going "RIGHT ON BROTHER, PREACH IT!" for the third time.
The funny thing is, while I stand with the ACLU on this one, at least on principle, I find that their legal support of such people as some sort of "enlightened" viewpoint is almost just as shallow.
I can't understand this paragraph, I think it might be that time I swore at some moron on the internets.
What's funny about standing with the ACLU on principle, but finding their legal support morally shallow? Im not laughing. It's not funny at all. The poster above you, he was slightly amusing. This is not.
Further, how can you stand with something "on principle", but turn around and call it "shallow". It's a contradictory statement. It makes no sense, much like the rest of your post.
You seriously suck.
LA LA LA LA LA
Please tasp me please. Please oh please do it. DO IT.
I watch 5-10 shows a week on Hulu, streamed over DSL, then over the wireless router, and have never had a streaming problem. Once I thought I did, but it turns out the cat sat on the laptop.
Anyone else want to share their unscientific anecdotes?
I am very suspicious of the iPad. I expect that it will be used to infringe on several important rights holders in the music and movie industry. We need to seize all iPads before they can be used to commit this treasonous act.
To the CopyRightMobile, ACTAman!
The thread was quickly locked and will probably be deleted.
Link to Original Source