Geeto67

which again isn't conclusive proof of "Aliens", just that there is something they can't identify in the sky. There is just too much speculation and not enough "proof". Let's look at it from another perspective: Time Travel. There is a theory out there that says time travel may be possible but has a limit to how far back we can go and we just haven't entered into the period where people can travel back to. Well, what if we have just started to enter that limit in the last 100 years? it could explain some of this phenomenon and still not involve aliens. One of the more frustrating things about pop culture time travel is that it forgets time and space are linked. The earth moves and is constantly moving so if you travel by fixed point portal, you may not be in the same place when you exit - you could be in the depths of space, or 10,000 feet over the ocean. It's nice to think about marty and doc hitting 88mph in the delorean and traveling 30 years back and still being in hill valley but in reality they could be anywhere from china, to the moon, to the depths of space. because of this positioning it could be that there are only pockets when people could travel. I mean there's a lot in this realm to unpack and none of it involves aliens. and let's not get into interdemensional theories.

Bullshit You are getting off topic. Where do you stand Austin? Personally I want to believe, but I am highly skeptical. I've spent most of my life around aviation which means I have spent more time watching the skies than the ground and as a result I have seen some weird shit and some I couldn't explain. But I have never seen anything I would describe as "Aliens". Does life exist somewhere else out there? Odds are in favor that it does. The thing that it turns on is the physical barriers that exist in travel between the stars. Maybe we aren't thinking about it the right way and time is more of a factor then we realize. I dunno...thoughts?

Saw that yesterday. UFO's absolutely exist - anything in the sky you can't identify is a UFO. Aliens? that's a different conversation and it is kind of a shame that when people hear UFO they automatically think Aliens. All that has been recognized is that there is a government organization that studies UFO's (in the traditional sense of an unidentified flying object) observed by service members. It does not remotely count as an official nod to the existence of extraterrestrial crafts, beings, or anything else along those lines. This has happened before - Project Blue Book was recognized in the past. Robert Bigelow, who makes most of the "aliens" comments in the story is kind of a controversial figure. He's a billionaire and an aerospace pioneer, but also kind of a crackpot who has been on Coast to Coast spouting some out there theories. On one hand his money has funded debunking efforts, but on the other he has some really wild and unfounded opinions. I should also point out that despite owning an aerospace company he isn't a scientist, just a business man who made a lot of money in real estate.

Say it's "Groce" all you want, it was built for $2010 as part of one of Grassroots motorsports challenges and it crushes on auto-x and road courses: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-7Hlede7ezho/UNKKs1ImQwI/AAAAAAAALbw/wou0qG16yFM/s1600/Jeep+Cherokee.jpg here have some fun looking at jeeps in places they don't usually belong: https://grassrootsmotorsports.com/forum/grm/road-race-jeeps-lets-see-em/54913/page1/ http://becauseracecar.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/JEEP-AT-SEARS-POINT-650x430.jpg

http://www.cleveland19.com/story/37092233/330-personalized-ohio-license-plates-rejected-this-year-by-bmv-graphic-content Since Tim posted that thread about a personalized plate I thought this was kind of appropriate. Also, it's nice to know that the BMV is likely to reject a plate with "Hate" or "H8" in it. BTW, when I lived in New Orleans, this kid at Tulane with a black honda civic had the plate 68NIOU1. To me it is still epic that he got that issued.

exactly, like voting in congresspeople that support the passage of net neutrality laws. Between the House and Senate there were 265 individuals who either sent a letter to the FCC asking to strike down net neutrality or voted down net neutrality laws in the past. Don't let the fact that all of them are Republican sway you, the Telecom's spend indiscriminately across both parties. In Ohio Rob Portman is the only senator who opposed net neutrality. It's a shame because he is a good bipartisan working partner, but if he isn't for Net Neutrality then he isn't representing his constituency but the Telecoms which paid $89,000 to his last campaign (2016). In the House of Representatives the following Ohio Reps took money from Telecoms and supported the end of net neutrality: Bill Johnson, Ohio, $196,666 Steve Chabot, Ohio, $332,083 Brad Wenstrup, Ohio, $33,750 If you see these names on the Ballot, vote for the other guy. If you are a dyed in the wool republican, don't worry 3/4ths of republican voters polled don't support the end of net neutrality either, so this isn't a matter of selling out your party or other such nonsense - it's just a way to course correct the party. Politicians are simple creatures, the only thing they respond to are money and votes. Since most don't have the money to match the telecom industry in donations, the only way to make the party reverse position is to vote those who don't support what you want out of office. I highly doubt net neutrality is the hill the party wants to die on so the moment they see this issue threaten their power in government they will jump ship. If you oppose this and you still vote for these individuals, you send the message that Net Neutrality isn't important and it won't cost the politicans anything to oppose it - if you want them to change their position you have to cost them something (like their position in the government).

Missed this before. Really it depends on the product and its role to society. The core question that this turns on is whether the Internet is a fungible good like a can of coca-cola, or a utility, like the street in front of your house. The Net Neutrailty laws had treated the Internet like the public road system, open access to anyone, and the ISPs like utility companies. Overturning it means they can treat it like a can of coke, except you can only buy your coke from one store and nowhere else, and they determine what size you get for you, how much is inside the can, and how much you can drink per sip. Would you buy a can of coke with those restrictions? Probably not, but the world has progressed to the point where there are some things that can only be accessed by Internet, so you have to buy the can of coke. Make sense? There are a whole host of ways where treating a utility like a competitive good fucks with the free market, if you want to get into it.

Lowered Jeep XJ's and SJ's have been a thing for a long while. The Lowered SJ is more of a lead sled kind of than than corner carver but still.... People usually didn't lower wranglers because they don't come 2wd and just lowering the old TJ/YJ/CJ body on frame trucks wouldn't have solved some of the instability problems. Jeep rods and jeep drag cars have been a thing for a while but those aren't exactly handling cars and in some cases more 1930's ford than jeep. http://image.fourwheeler.com/f/9588676+w660+re0/131_0712_03_z%2Bdecember_2007_4x4_tech%2B1980_jeep_grand_wagoneer.jpg I think it's neat, but I think the JK is probably the first generation to actually be able to do it because it is almost as wide as it is long.

WOW. great job.

Not really, mustang IIs are loathed by many. Maybe it's like $500 too low but not the $5k you are suggesting. $5k can get you a clean cobra II that runs.

Yeah but they are cheap for what they are. 500hp and many are less than $30k with less Than 30k miles. Sure they are nose heavy with the iron block, have stripper mustang interiors, and the clutches on them occasionally explode but it's 500 reliable, pump gas, horsepower for like $27k. Feels like a deal to me.

I'm pretty sure the worst that happens is rampant censorship of a China like proportion.

But what good is that going to do if everyone gets pissed? The overwhelming majority of people were pissed at the FCC decision and it still went through. They tried to put it as a law through congress twice and that failed. When the telephone companies were broken up - it still took 30 years for long distance calls to get cheap, now that this has happened it may take us another 30 years to get us back to were we just were on Monday.

The government paying for your education, or disability, pension, or literally anything past your term of service is not related to national security. That was their position till the 1950's when Eisenhower started to change the conversation. It is still the defense they use when someone else brings up that the government should be doing "x" for soldiers. Good, ask more questions - make less statements. since there are a lot of tech industry people on here that know way more than me I know I am going to get at least some things wrong in simplifying, but: ISP's are a monopoly because they physically own the network. Remember "the internet is a series of tubes"? it's not an unfair analogy, the hardware to physically transmit the data has to be owned by someone. The ISPs are that someone. think of it like the phone lines (because some of them are, or at least used to be phone lines) - see those telephone poles with cables on them on the side of every road? has to be owned by someone - the phone company was that someone. And you can't put up competing phone lines because that physical space is already taken. It's actually more complicated than that when you get into ISPs that are community owned and non-profit, plus the cable companies and the rest but the basics of it is that ISPs owns the physical network that connects you with the internet. that's why so many of them are telephone companies or cable companies, or the like. If you wanted to establish competition, you would need to to take all the networks away from the private companies - treat it like a utility (like electricity or water) and then evenly distribute the rights of access to the ISPs. What the 2015 NN rules did: instead of taking away the networks, it told the ISPs they were utility providers and as such had to offer equal access to everyone. They didn't like that.

Yeah you get those benefits, and you earned them by sitting in the fox hole and going to funerals, and all that stuff you listed. Did you think they were immediately determined at the onset of the constitution? because they weren't. Revolutionary soldiers, civil war soldiers, WWI, and WWII soldiers didn't get a lot of the compensation you get. Why? because all those things you get are determined by government regulations, and they developed over time. Both my grandfather's fought in WWII - they didn't get SCRA, or post 9/11 educational assistance program, or tuition fairness, or protections from predatory for-profit colleges, or expanded disability benefits, PTSD treatments or even burial benefits offered to them because those things didn't exist when they served or were alive. Those things exist because soldiers lobbied and marched, and protested and petitioned for them with the government. If you "deregulated" the government they would go away because the government would love to stop paying on them. they don't do it because it's a great incentive for people to enlist (it is an incentive, but it is one of many reasons people join) or it saves them money. Before the government felt it had to pay to incentive people to sign up they just instituted a draft and gave you no choice. You got what you got and you were lucky to get it. yes we get it, you have an ax to grind with the military and because of it you hate the government bureaucracy, and while I am not saying you are getting a handout, I am saying it is hypocritical to accept any kind of compensation from the government for your service when you directly advocate the government should de-regulate and therefore not provide that compensation.

What scale are the cars? 1/32nd scaleletrix? or 1/24?

You are wasting your breath with this one. He's a guy in his mid 20's, I dare you to find someone who wasn't an overconfident underinformed a-hole in their mid-20's. He will grow out of it eventually or harden into a hate tank - only time will tell. The thing I don't get is that he's a veteran, and like all veterans I am sure the government has fucked him over at some point, but instead of working to help improve veteran affairs, he (like many other vets just like him) takes the angry approach of burn the government down and deregulate everything - even if it isn't in his best interest. If he really got his "libertarian" utopia, all those government benefits he's enjoyed so far evaporate. If your house has a leaky roof, you don't burn the house down, you fix the leaks until they stop.

So you don't feel like more education is good? That's a pretty ignorant position. Actually nothing pretty about it. First: The CDC wouldn't conduct actual research - they would find real experts to conduct the research and manage the grant and the impartiality. Second: Gathering data and doing root cause analysis is not the same thing as educating you on how to use a firearm or it's components. Research drives decisions - I am sure you are as tired of seeing ill informed gun legislation as I am tired of hearing you talk about the false pretense that guns make you safer. Research would cure both of that. You are an extremist who doesn't want to hear anything contrary to your beliefs, that doesn't make you intelligent or an expert - it makes you closed minded and ignorant. great then why block the research that would steer them away from that and towards the recommendations of educated people. Politicians are advocates, not experts. They usually rely on experts to make policy - but in the absence of experts they rely on public outcry. Take away the funding you take away the experts and all you have left are people who want something, anything, done but don't have the research to steer them in the right direction. It's statements like this that make you look like you are a textbook example of the Dunning–Kruger effect.

To be fair, the NRA actively blocks research on this issue so nobody discussing it can be said to be speaking from an informed position. You want to say you are speaking from an informed position? repeal the Dickey amendment.

That is the message that gets lost here isn't it? The public outcry against this was huge It crossed party lines, religious lines, business lines, etc....I don't think anybody will disagree that those who supported the end of net neutrality were physically in the minority in this case. And yet we are here. Basically in one swift move Trump and Ajit basically said "we, in our capacity as government officials don't represent the public majority interest anymore". I can't honestly think of a bigger fuck you to the whole of America than this particular action.

Well if the government improves something they don't "get out" so.....your challenge is false on it's face. But to answer the first part of your question: Employment, environment, The telecommunications industry, shipping, Aviation, Nuclear Power, Electric Power...I mean, there are a lot. But you will argue because "better" is subjective and for you it is probably only focused on revenue and excludes public benefit or human cost. I will openly agree that there are regulations that overshot, and not "everything" has to be regulated, but this position that nothing should be regulated is just nonsense.

Yes, and they will probably be the most visibly affected and the first affected because of regulations that require disclosure in the billing cycle that you wouldn't see in your ISP bill.

So first of all: awww you were doing so well and then you let your ignorance climb to the top and fuck you into the ground. Please, for the love of god stop being so uninformed. Actually this is the opposite of competition. This deregulation gives ISPs the power to extort the content providers and play favorites. It both interferes and eliminates competition because the ISPs can choose to charge smaller companies that provide competing products higher access fees to their customer bases across their lines. It basically makes the ISP a partner in every business because those business now have to pay to get access past the filter. Think about it like this: If you are the landline telephone provider and the ISP in a midsize town, you can now throttle every voip call across your lines down to 0, so people have to buy your landlines to use their home telephones. Where is the competition in that? This is not a hypothetical: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/03/25/AR2005032501328.html Also think about the lines and the competitive local exchange carriers. There is an Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier who owns the transmission lines (the monolopy carrier) and the competitive local exchange carrier who buys space on the incumbent's lines. The Incumbents were bundling services and handicapping the CLEC's so that the majority of customers were driven to buy their services, and because they owned the lines it was take it or leave it for the CLEC's. The FCC intervened, the ILEC's sued and the court sided with the ILEC's. Immediately after the CLEC's closed in a lot of markets. How is that competitive if the owner of the lines can just drive their competitors for other services out of business? That case, gave traction to the beginning of net neutrality because if the court wasn't going to let the FCC protect the competitors in the marketplace, it could regulate the pipeline to create a situation that supported competition.

No. Net Neutrality has been a topic of conversation since the late 1980's and is closely linked to the same acts which decentralized the Telephone companies in the 1980's. What we now know as Net Neutrality has it's origin in "principles of Network Freedom", which was introduced by (now former) FCC chairman Michael Powell, under the W Administration (Powell was appointed by W) and further shored up by several lawsuits in 2005. We have had 4 successive FCC chairmen since then (not counting Ajit) and all of them added to the original principles. Tom Wheeler, the Appointee before Ajit, published the most recent rules on net neutrality in 2015. Tom Wheeler is a particularly interesting person because he was a democrat against Net Neutrality prior to his appointment, however several actions on the part of the telecomunications companies that lead to lawsuits changed his position and led to the final Net Neutrality rules. No. It will be the same as it was in the early 1990s. It is not hypothetical, in 2007 comcast was shown to be favoring higher paying customers over lower paying customers, the suit was mostly around bit torrent sites but other large file download apps were affected as well. Prior to that, in 2004-05 there was the issue of bundling with DSL and dailup where providers were forcing you to sign up for bundled services in order to improve web traffic. prior to that there was the Madison river case were voice over dial up users were being throttled so as to promote traditional telephone services in smaller markets. This isn't a perceived hypothetical, the telecoms began abusing their customers right out of the gate and would have continued doing so had the FCC not taken a stand. Furthermore it draws a ton of parallels with what happened with Ma Bell and the eventually antitrust actions that caused the break up of the phone company. I know you are way to young to remember this but long distance used to be freakishly expensive - is it now? no? because of regulation. Ajit was an Obama appointee to the commission but not to head of FCC. Ajit was appointed by Obama under the recommendation of Mitch McConnell as part of some good will that Obama was seeking for a different bill that he needed republican support on. Trump appointed him to the head of the FCC in January, and did so specifically because of his position against net neutrality (he made a point of mentioning it in the appointment). So yes, blame Trump, because this was exactly the outcome he wanted when he installed Ajit in there. Under Obama Ajit as a member of the commission did not have the power to repeal this item. The "toll roads" exist because of the equipment, not because of discriminatory throttling. When any user signs up to the service they get the same free and open internet that the equipment can provide as anybody else signed up for that equipment. This isn't an issue about "speed" this is an issue about directing you to pay for other services by being selective about your content, and it occurs at the level of who owns the transmission lines, not the end service provider renting space on those lines. So there are people who look at internet as a competitive good, and people who look at it as a public utility. So which is it? well, since 2005 the government has treated the internet as a public utility and correctly done so because it bottlenecks. Deregulating a utility always leads to abuse of the customers because there is no other competitive choice for the customers to go to. People are not worried about "greed", greed is assumed in this situation. What they are worried about is the abuses returning that caused for the regulations in the first place. People didn't ask the government to do this because of some hypothetical "greed" there were actual cases that lead to lawsuits that forced the FCC to make a decision one way or the other. It evolved holistically in response to the telecoms taking advantage of their customers. You are right, 6 months is not enough time to feel the effects. There will be lawsuits, acts of congress, etc...that will slow the implementation down. Plus the telecoms don't want to make any fast decisions because it could lead to a judicial stay while the case is adjudicated. However, 2 years is more reasonable a time frame to see change provided this goes unchecked.

this stuff is all beautiful