Typhoid

Happy Birthday my friend!!

Happy Birthday!!

it is certainly feasible, just not affordable. there are a few specialized missions where a stealth transport would be useful. Like going into someone's air defense network and bagging a terrorist leader........ but 99% of air transport is hauling stuff and personnel from one safe location to another safe location. The cost of stealth just isn't worth it for that.

a stealth transport? why?

going over the edge? Oh Yea!!!! had they waited and the plane started over they could have been out of the envelope in about .05 picoseconds!! If one has any doubt, it is time to go!! yea, one of those really, really bad days on the birdfarm!

Great shots!!

That's what Title II opens up. And yes, I have discussed this with my Congresscritter, we represent each other in our respective districts and talk frequently Erik, Comcast is an Internet company. You have not ensured what I need, you are campaigning to take it away and force me to subsidize large volume users.

I've been slogging through it. The correct phrase is not "we won" the correct phrase is "you've been had". There are no new taxes, fees, etc. - yet. The "forebearance" sections should be read clearly for what they are - a "pinky promise" not to raise fees, taxes, etc., until they think they can get away with it. The degree of control by the FCC is huge, invasive and oppressive. I am still reading through it all but it is far less about "Net Neutrality" than it is about imposing Title II. Which is what this really was all about all along. On to the Courts and the Congress

still no published regs for any of us unwashed masses to read and evaluate. what are key people saying about this? http://www.fcc.gov/document/comm-pai-what-people-are-saying-post-adoption-obama-internet-plan I particularly like the Netflix CEO comment and the characterization of these regs as "Net Neutering" - spot on! and why so long to publish the regs voted on in an open meeting? http://www.fcc.gov/blog/fixing-flawed-and-non-existent-editorial-privileges never mind the man behind the curtain!!

The list of who paid for what in that article left off the part where the contract between the content provider and the carrier was listed. Which part of the new regulations address that part? Loaded question since the FCC staff is still writing the regs, IN SECRET, that were "passed" last month. But we have to pass them in order for us to be able see what's in them, right.........? I found it particularly interesting to read that The Evil Comcast is FOR net neutrality and poor, abused Netflix already regrets this regulatory overreach. But as noted before, we'll see how badly everyone got screwed whenever the FCC finally gets around to releasing their post-vote written regs.

amateurs..... (6 boys, 3 girls and now grandchild #11 on the way)

RIP

Have we ever caught him in a Truth yet? Regulating under Title II is precisely what gives them the power to tax/fee providers - and ultimately you. The Chair of the Commissioner admitted that but "promised" that is "not their intention" - yet.... What should give you pause, all of you pause, is that these regs are still secret. No one really knows what is in these regs or not because they haven't released them yet. So everyone will be held to regulations that no one knows what they are. Erik, do you have your site licence application and application fee ready yet? I'll hold further comment until we can all see what is actually in the regs, but the fact that no one actually knows what the regs (not passed legislation) are should be very troubling to everyone. So we will see. I quite honestly hope, my friend, that I am wrong and you are right, but I rather doubt it given the track record so far. In the meantime, the FCC statement; http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-adopts-strong-sustainable-rules-protect-open-internet dissenting statement from Commissioner O'Reilly; http://www.fcc.gov/article/doc-332260a6 dissenting statement from Commissioer Pai; http://www.fcc.gov/article/doc-332260a5 you should all read those dissenting opinions carefully because they go into the details that the Soros and Ford Foundation $170million funded net-neutrality media campaign avoided mentioning.

no. It means that the FCC can now levy fees and taxes on everyone who uses the Internet. This is a stealth tax on everyone, and a big one. it means that under the provisions of "a public service" they have the power to regulate content, service, and override contracts. "It means that the BS practices of limiting internet service to specific regions, and forcing outrageous prices for those outside of those regions IS OVER." never existed. What does exist is that areas that don't have enough people to support a service don't get served. That's the Free Market and customer base at work, not Restraint of Trade as alleged. "The days of internet companies deciding what sites I can visit based on how much I pay, is OVER." never existed. " It also means that the ISP's can't charge me more because I use "more Internet" just for using Netflix. Or charge me more because I want to multi-player game." it means that those who don't use heavy bandwidth will now be charged more to subsidize the heavy users and make everyone "equal" rather than charged for service. There was never a "slow lane" as some people alleged. There were "fast lanes" that gave the option to people who wanted a higher level of service. That will now go away and everyone will have the same level of sub-par service. Kiss your fast lanes goodbye because the broader market won't support it. "It keeps the ISP's from charging unfair rates to areas that are remote because there isn't enough people in a given area." that isn't unfair. It is market conditions. If there isn't a customer base to support extension of wired service then service doesn't go out there to remote areas. Instead, there are wireless options in some areas or satellite. Neither will compete with landlines (whether cable, wired, fiber, etc.) but that is a market condition tied to a customer base, not a Restraint of Trade or "unfair" service. "My ISP ATT U-verse offers several packages. If I want more speed I have to pay more they press a button and I get it." you will lose that. "My understanding is that if Comcast got their way they can charge providers say CombatACE monthly fee so CombatACE can provide content in a timely manner." no. Comcast and other service providers contract with large volume users, such as Netflix, because Netflix is such a large volume. (I read somewhere that Netflix is about 40% of the Internet). But nothing that has gone on or was going to go on would have required content provides, such as CombatACE, to have such a contract to carry their content. Contracts do provide assurance of service for large volumes. Internet Service Providers don't block content (other than porn). Under the new FCC rules that now will become an issue. essentially, what many of you all thought you were going to prevent, will now become a very likely probability under that part of the FCC regs. You all were duped. Big time. of course, the above is stated without having seen the actual rules since they still haven't been released and posted for review. So who really knows what is actually in these secret regs? I'll wager that there is very little of what some of you all thought were in them and whole lot of taxes, fees and heavy-handed regulation, including potential content regulation. hopefully the time in court will enable a full vetting of what the regs actually are and sanity may yet prevail. But I doubt it. The Obamanet is now here and the free and open Internet will become a thing of the past. If you liked your Internet, you don't get to keep your Internet.

there is a lot of journalism about what people think might be in the regs, but no link to the actual regs. The minority members of the FCC board have requested that these 323 pages of regs be released, but the chair of the board has steadfastly refused. yes, the safety valve will be the courts. Hopefully there will be full disclosure and a legal review before this goes into effect.

Quick question - does anyone really know what actually is in the proposed regulations which will be passed tomorrow? thought not........ That should be all of your red flag #1 - they have to pass it before you can see what is atually in it.

Congratulations!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

wasn't intended to be annoying but rather humorous. no offense was intended and I will refrain from such in the future. we'll see on the regs, I think you all are being sold down the river but we'll see what is actually voted in on the 26th. It should be a red flag that less than two weeks out, no one has seen the actual regs. I suppose it has to be passed so we can see what's in it....... out.

I've commented on this before and after being told that my opinion was not desired (content blocked?) have held further comment. But I'll say this once, the proposed regulations are NOT what they are being sold as and this will end up doing the opposite of what many of you think. In effect this will be a massive tax hike on the users, will drive many small ISP's out of business, will stifle innovation and investment, and basically screw over the Internet and all of you. Be careful what you wish for. Out.

with a microsat that is feasible, but as noted a bit more of a challenge than the ASAT. The concept already works with an L-1011 launch vehicle.

I could never fathom jumping out of a perfectly good airplane........

This was a good read until it started going off the rails on conspiracy theory BS.

they're on the web of course. That's how they post their brutal videos. which of course makes them as much as a target as everyone else.

fuel cells have been around for awhile and this looks like a small, portable fuel cell sufficient for portable devices. Should work fine but how many people really need to fork over a grand just to recharge their portable electronics? technically viable but commercially viable is another question. I rather like my coal power plant downtown...........