Typhoid

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I just don't see it. consider ths - The FCC proposed a set of rules that a district court ruled they don't have the authority to impose. The President also does not actually hae the authority to unilaterally impose these regulations. Legislation for this needs to come through Congress, not Executive Orders. so far as companies investing to make money. that is what companies are in business to do. Yes, the money comes from those customers who choose to use those services.

Not a great analogy, but your cost to go the same distance is the comparison Different net speeds for different users is the issue. If you use a lot, you are putting a higher demand which the various providers have to build the capacity for. Why should someone who browses email and news pay the same as someone who streams 3 or more TV's in the same house? Different service levels for different levels of service is entirely legitimate. What is not legit is the arbitrary seizure of control of the Internet without any authorizing legislation. There are different costs here for different membership plans. Are you all prepared for those who brought you the Unaffordable Care Act to dictate the same prices here?

Several possibilities come to mind

It's not BS, it is the cost of the capacity that the ISP has to build. Kind of like going to the gas station, your SUV costs more to fill up than the economy car because you use more gas. The ISP has to build a bigger pipe.

I'm going to have to disagree with the prevailing crowd here. Net Neutrality is not exactly what it is portrayed as. At the core is the idea that every internet service provider (ISP) will be required to treat all data the same. that doesn't really track very well. If a company lays out the infrastructure to carry their data, they should be able to charge for that, #1, and should be able to make agreements with content providers for discounts for them and for their customers. The idea that an ISP cannot make tiered service levels, and prices, hurts the providers since their cost-of-service is different for different classes of users. This will undermine the economic viability of both the ISP's and the content providers. Essentially, the idea that the internet is a utility and the US feds should be able to regulate what is an open, free-market, international network is not a great idea. The internet has developed and evolved without any such oversight. What is the compelling need now for the US federal gov't to intervene and regulate? and especially without any authorizing legislation? This is a power grab, pure and simple. So those who brought you the Unaffordable Care Act will now rescue you all from - what? If you like your ISP, you can keep your ISP? what could possibly go wrong...........................

One was built for gen 1

of note, several of these systems are emplaced around Washington DC.

Those tires were smoking a buck and quarter a foot!

oh yea!!!!!

In Colorado.........

well................ I don't know about US subs pulling that, it doesn't seem likely given the shallow waters there. But it might have. A big question would be "why?". What I do know is that Soviet mini-subs have always been used for a variety of intelligence missions in shallow waters, complete with Soviet "mother subs".

reportedly there were about 500 IS fighters on and around that hill. Good job!!

Glad to see you're doing ok. Best of luck!!

Good luck!!!!!

flying a few approaches to this it occurs to me the wires are too far aft. They should be further forward.

Good one!!!

yep. There used to be a list of names/words that were combined to come up with them. I was part of "Sharp Edge" which was the evacuation of the embassy in Monrovia at one point. Then some political hack (oh, wait.....) came up with linking some objective to the name of the operation, which wasn't really a bad idea. An example was Desert Shield, followed naturally by Desert Storm. Defense of the US after 9/11 is Noble Eagle. not naming an operation is a really bad, purely political, idea with mostly administrative impacts but affects the tracking of appropriations for the operation. A key issue. I like the ideas above! but looking at how it is all being done, and mis-managed by an increasingly inept WH - Operation Cluster, er, bomb, sounds appropriate. The patch for that has already been in circulation since our idiotic non-war in Libya.........................

yep. Especially in range of high threat, modern air defense environment which Syria is.

haven't seen a reason to move off of 7 yet.

We would be not just the US, but NATO overall. When you count it all up, we've all decommissioned more than is presently in service. That is admittedly a bit of an exageration, but not by much.

want another statistic that will make you cry? The largest military force in the world is the one that we decommissioned.

I may have budget authority over about $4 billion, but getting that $40 past CINCHOUSE is exciting!

quite correct. Midway was converted to the SCB 101 configuration in 1970 and was the only one so configured.

has been going on for decades. Mig-31's is a new one though.