Nausi said: »
Cellular technology was invented in the 40s.
1917 Eric Tigerstedt. Let’s not get all preachy about history when the patent was filed 33yrs prior.
Random Politics & Religion #30 |
||
Random Politics & Religion #30
Offline
Posts: 9772
Nausi said: » Cellular technology was invented in the 40s. 1917 Eric Tigerstedt. Let’s not get all preachy about history when the patent was filed 33yrs prior. I stand corrected. What I meant was it was first attempted to be applied to markets in the 40s
Here's another one. AT&T trying to gain an edge in telecom by adapting existing power lines to carry data.
This would not be permissible under NN because only AT&T would have the market advantage with their investment. Can't do that, it's a public utility. Wouldn't be "fair" if one company had the advantage, therefore, no progress. YouTube Video Placeholder
Nausi said: » Here's another one. AT&T trying to gain an edge in telecom by adapting existing power lines to carry data. This would not be permissible under NN because only AT&T would have the market advantage with their investment. Can't do that, it's a public utility. Wouldn't be "fair" if one company had the advantage, therefore, no progress. Offline
Posts: 35422
How about a moment of fun with Alex Jones on guns:
YouTube Video Placeholder Cerberus.Pleebo said: » Nausi said: » Here's another one. AT&T trying to gain an edge in telecom by adapting existing power lines to carry data. This would not be permissible under NN because only AT&T would have the market advantage with their investment. Can't do that, it's a public utility. Wouldn't be "fair" if one company had the advantage, therefore, no progress. which in this particular instance is more hardware related.... I did some evil work on that project and it sounds easy enough... but holy ***...they got some serious hurdles to get over. YouTube Video Placeholder I don't need it.. I DON'T need it... I definitely don't need it... I need a Mosin-Nagant! Ramyrez said: » No, that ***costs money. I'm pretty sure I can buy 7.62x54R by complementing the gun shop cashier. It's cheap af. Also, I kinda want an AK. Nausi said: » Here's another one. AT&T trying to gain an edge in telecom by adapting existing power lines to carry data. This would not be permissible under NN because only AT&T would have the market advantage with their investment. Can't do that, it's a public utility. Wouldn't be "fair" if one company had the advantage, therefore, no progress. The failure of that had absolutely nothing to do with Net Neutrality. I don't even think you know what NN means. To put it simply, Net Neutrality is the concept, created the people who actually build the internet, that no provider would artificially restrict or modify traffic between the server and the destination user. The carrier can not prioritize data from it's own service higher then data from competitors services. This is extremely important because without it the Internet as we know it ceases to function. Now imagine if you went to play FFXI but got constant disconnects and terrible lag. You contact your provider and they say "there is nothing we can do for you" but that if you buy the $19.95 "Premium Gaming" package your gaming traffic would be better. Sounds legit right? Until you realize that in networking sense, all traffic is priority traffic. The only way a "packaged" system of prioritizing works is if the carrier artificially slows down non-marked traffic, which is exactly how QoS and traffic shaping work. They will be artificially slowing your internet down and then offering to charge you more money to "speed it back up", if not outright denying you and telling you to buy their inferior gated product at inflated rates. Asura.Saevel said: » The failure of that had absolutely nothing to do with Net Neutrality. I don't even think you know what NN means. This was obvious after his very first post on the subject, he is literally just making up "reasons" to support the move despite it being bad for every single American, including him. You would hope Congress would get involved, but considering they haven't done anything this year, I wouldn't count on them. Offline
Posts: 35422
ifififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififif we fall for some net neutrality....okie doke ! Obama
His brain blue-screened lol
I hate it when that happns to me Offline
Posts: 35422
Viciouss said: » Asura.Saevel said: » The failure of that had absolutely nothing to do with Net Neutrality. I don't even think you know what NN means. This was obvious after his very first post on the subject, he is literally just making up "reasons" to support the move despite it being bad for every single American, including him. You would hope Congress would get involved, but considering they haven't done anything this year, I wouldn't count on them. If's and buts are candy and nuts Congress won't get something done by Christmas. I'm being opressed by all this damned snow outside
CDC banned from using 'evidence-based' and 'science-based' on official documents: report
The Hill Quote: The Trump administration has reportedly banned the Centers for Disease Control from using the phrases “evidence-based” and “science-based” on official documents. Senior CDC officials distributed the list of “forbidden” words and phrases to policy analysts at the CDC on Thursday, the Washington Post reported Friday. The list also bans the use of “vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “diversity,” “transgender” and “fetus.” Analysts are reportedly prohibited from using the phrases on official documents they prepare for the 2019 budget, which is expected to be released in February. An analyst who attended the meeting at the CDC in Atlanta told the Washington Post that instead of “evidence-based” or “science-based,” policy analysts are instructed to use the phrase, “CDC bases its recommendations on science in consideration with community standards and wishes.” The analyst told the Post that other branches of President Trump’s health department are likely adhering to the same list of banned words. The source said that others at the meeting reacted with surprise when given the list. “It was very much, ‘Are you serious? Are you kidding?’” the analyst said, “In my experience, we’ve never had any pushback from an ideological standpoint.” The Trump administration has been repeatedly scrutinized for declining to acknowledge science-based findings, particularly related to climate change. Trump himself has not said whether he believes in climate science, and numerous members of his administration and his appointees have denied aspects of scientific consensus related to global warming. Offline
Posts: 35422
Garuda.Chanti said: » CDC banned from using 'evidence-based' and 'science-based' on official documents: report The Hill Quote: The Trump administration has reportedly banned the Centers for Disease Control from using the phrases “evidence-based” and “science-based” on official documents. Senior CDC officials distributed the list of “forbidden” words and phrases to policy analysts at the CDC on Thursday, the Washington Post reported Friday. The list also bans the use of “vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “diversity,” “transgender” and “fetus.” Analysts are reportedly prohibited from using the phrases on official documents they prepare for the 2019 budget, which is expected to be released in February. An analyst who attended the meeting at the CDC in Atlanta told the Washington Post that instead of “evidence-based” or “science-based,” policy analysts are instructed to use the phrase, “CDC bases its recommendations on science in consideration with community standards and wishes.” The analyst told the Post that other branches of President Trump’s health department are likely adhering to the same list of banned words. The source said that others at the meeting reacted with surprise when given the list. “It was very much, ‘Are you serious? Are you kidding?’” the analyst said, “In my experience, we’ve never had any pushback from an ideological standpoint.” The Trump administration has been repeatedly scrutinized for declining to acknowledge science-based findings, particularly related to climate change. Trump himself has not said whether he believes in climate science, and numerous members of his administration and his appointees have denied aspects of scientific consensus related to global warming. I think we should ban all words cause they might be "offensive". We should address everyone as they or them to avoid singling out a specific race. Offline
Posts: 35422
Anna Ruthven said: » YouTube Video Placeholder I don't need it.. I DON'T need it... I definitely don't need it... I need a Mosin-Nagant! You need to get out of OK son...noting but tumbleweeds and tornadoes. Asura.Saevel said: » The real danger with removing Net Neutrality is the ISP's who are merging with media providers into conglomerates that control too much of the product to have a free market work. It's bad enough that some area's only have one ISP due to mergers and capital costs, but without someone ensuring their being fair and transparent they are going to play with traffic shaping to drive users to their own products. ISP offers a plan at $70 USD a month for high speed internet. ISP also owns a media company and charges $20 USD a month for access to that media. Now consumers can choose to go with a different media provider like Netflicks, Amazon Prime, Hulu and so forth. ISP then puts in QoS and traffic shaping that severely degrades data to those competitors while leaving their own service running fine. If a consumer wants open access to those services they need to pay the ISP company $10 USD a month. That is the nightmare scenario. That's what happened up here in Central NY, we had charter and time warner, then charter bought out time warner so if you want internet you have to buy from spectrum or go with dsl. Sucks cause now they do not offer any promos for existing customers so you pay out the ***. My cable bill is $240 a month no ***. Offline
Posts: 1600
The Last Jedi is SJW propaganda.
Discuss. Star wars never interested me I prefer the trek.
Offline
Posts: 1600
Odin.Slore said: » Star wars never interested me I prefer the trek. |
||
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.
|