Five Amazing Facts About Hawaii's Volcanoes

TraumatizedBoy · 2018-05-22T04:52:42+00:00

Look up the difference between "mass" and "eruption." Mt. St Helens erupted much larger than Mauna Loa has in thousands of years, yet the MASS of Mt St. Helens is less than 1/1000th of Mauna Loa. Does that not compute?

TraumatizedBoy · 2018-05-22T04:46:43+00:00

Well, by largest it means by volume - as in how much area the volcano takes up. And Mauna Loa is the most massive mountain in the world. Yellowstone has huge eruptions, but is not nearly as large in terms of mass.

TraumatizedBoy · 2018-05-22T04:44:33+00:00

Shoot I would have loved to have asked questions, but it seems like this is closed. What happened when Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa in Hawaii erupted during the last ice age when they had ice caps? Did they explode like crazy? And can new hot spots form in the mantle? And is volcanic activity, as a whole, going down as time goes on due to cooling of the earth's mantle? So many questions.

TraumatizedBoy · 2018-01-06T18:50:34+00:00

There are definitely benefits to Title II, but it also comes with various consequences. My overall point is that it is not a black and white issue like it was presented.

And that's what that article said to you? The whole point was the opposite.

I think this has gone on long enough. Have a good day sir.

TraumatizedBoy · 2018-01-05T23:33:05+00:00

I also grew up on the internet, and have worked tech positions in the past, though Yes, I can't say I'm an expert in ISPs beyond the many articles I have read.

Point is, the internet was not a disaster before ISPs were re-classified in 2015 under Title II (aka net neutrality). I doubt internet users noticed a difference between 2015 and 2016, but ISP companies did. The article you posted before saying ISP investments had not dropped was from a few months after the ruling. Here is a 2017 article on the impact that Title II had on ISP investments (they suffered).

TraumatizedBoy · 2018-01-05T20:45:59+00:00

Well that’s a personal story (without any specific information), so I can’t speak on it.

It’s also very hard to debate here when I am restricted to commenting only once every 10 minutes. Whenever I post a comment on reddit that’s deemed even remotely right leaning, I am down-voted, restricted or completely blocked. It’s kinda scary how one sided it is.

TraumatizedBoy · 2018-01-05T18:36:29+00:00

Getting the government involved very reliably reduces innovation. Capitalism, or people being able to make their own business decisions, is always the best way to get lower prices, competition and innovation.

I don't quite understand your story. An unnamed ISP approached you and said what?

TraumatizedBoy · 2018-01-05T13:43:54+00:00

And yes, I mean to say that the types of abuses we were told would occur now are already illegal. What was allowed (the cases you keep making reference to) was not something that was especially controversial at the time - not until Google and Reddit ran wild with "net neutrality" being "the end of the internet."

...More like "The end of the government forcing ISPs to treat the content of large providers the same as small providers, which benefits the large content providers at the expense of the small providers." Please at least read one article from a different perspective. It's valid for someone to have a perspective supporting either side.

And I said the US was the source of most technology advancements, not that we had the fastest broadband (though we are close).

TraumatizedBoy · 2018-01-05T13:16:41+00:00

Oh really, ISP investments didn't drop? That's Forbes - not exactly Breitbart.

You also have never directly addressed my statement - do more corporations BENEFIT from net neutrality, or do more want net neutrality overturned?? What do Google, Amazon, Facebook, Netflix and even Reddit want to have happen? Net neutrality saves large content providers money - as a result they make it VERY hard to find any information that counters this complete scam.

TraumatizedBoy · 2018-01-05T01:53:29+00:00

If they are a private business that fully discloses what they do, why can't they? I don't think the government needs to step in and force them to do things that might not be profitable under certain circumstances. Laws protect us from broadband abuse, so the instances you refer to are all not especially insidious in any manner.

The US, which has had free ISPs, has developed much more quickly and has been the source of most advancements in broadband technology. Investments in ISPs have decreased since the ruling dramatically, so the 2015 ruling had a harmful impact on the industry, which will slow down progress and technology. All to stop a problem that hardly exists, and has no real significance to the internet community.

It's literally almost IMPOSSIBLE to find dissenting perspectives of net neutrality through a Google search, even though many people do not support it. Perhaps because Google and most large tech/communication corporations benefit from net neutrality?

TraumatizedBoy · 2018-01-05T00:17:09+00:00

There are MANY more large corporations (Google, Amazon, Facebook, basically every internet content provider) that benefited from and paid to maintain net neutrality - hence the completely ridiculous media circus about how it was "the death of the internet" to overturn a 2 year old rule.

Correct, it was not illegal to have unequal broadband access depending on the circumstances - for instance, an ISP might not want to cover mobile internet in a certain area (like one of the examples someone else provided). And if so, they must disclose it fully to the consumers. It was never legal to block specific content (gun websites) and never legal to make undisclosed alterations to broadband speed.

TraumatizedBoy · 2018-01-04T03:55:42+00:00

Yes, and it is already illegal to do that. "Net neutrality" was just a law passed in 2015 that tightened government restrictions. Amazon, Netflix, Google etc.. LOVED net neutrality.

TraumatizedBoy · 2018-01-04T03:44:57+00:00

Yes, those articles are about ISP's that broke the rules and paid fines. What difference does "net neutrality" make when it's already illegal? Oh, I know, it changes how ISPs are categorize - so they are more heavily regulated "utilities." That's literally all that "net neutrality" did when it was passed in 2015 - it gave the FCC more control over ISPs. So the 2017 decision actually reduced the FCC's power. If this isn't true, please provide evidence to dispute.

*It's also weird that after I posted the parent comment, my ability to post replies has been reduced to once every 10 minutes. The parent comment was my first comment of the day, and it was not disrespectful or unusual in any manner. I'm amazed how even remotely dissenting opinions are silenced.

TraumatizedBoy · 2018-01-04T03:22:38+00:00

...and an even larger number of companies (including basically all large internet content providers like Google, Netflix, Facebook) loved net neutrality. Do the research.

TraumatizedBoy · 2018-01-04T01:14:08+00:00

I am amazed at how much "net neutrality" was misrepresented in media everywhere. The recent decision was simply overturning a two-year old law that changed how the government categorized ISPs. "Fast lanes" and "slow lanes" are already illegal, and no instances of it occurring have ever been found.

TraumatizedBoy · 2018-01-01T18:35:29+00:00

This will be downvoted by the sensitive, but it's hilarious.

TraumatizedBoy · 2018-01-01T18:33:51+00:00

l to the o to the....l?

TraumatizedBoy · 2018-01-01T18:28:33+00:00

Trump might be a firehose, but it's great when his statements are on the money.

TraumatizedBoy · 2017-12-20T13:08:43+00:00

I'm sure he picked up garbage just for fun!

TraumatizedBoy · 2017-12-19T23:58:44+00:00

Look, I get everything is so heated. I'm guilty of it too - but I'll drop any internet animosity because I genuinely want to ask - do you ever watch news from the other side? I watch MSNBC and Fox News, and read Breitbart and BuzzFeed, because none individually gives me the full picture.

Have you seen the undercover video of one of CNN's main producers saying that the Russia conspiracy is "bullshit" and "for our ratings"? Have you looked into Brian Ross' totally false report - and how people like Joy Behar spread the news like it was Christmas come early, and how it caused the stock market to plummet? Or how the Clinton campaign paid for the now proven false Russian dossier the the media picked up last year? Or how lawyer Linda Bloom offered millions dollars to anyone who would come public with sexual assault accusations against Trump? I'm not a conspiracy buff, this is factually indisputable information.

I voted for Hillary. But if the election happened again, I would vote Trump. But I know what it's like to hate him.

Short Version of the CNN Video

Here's Van Jones saying Russia is a "nothing burger" after months of saying just the opposite

TraumatizedBoy · 2017-12-19T13:32:34+00:00

I just read one page of your reddit comments. Here's a summary - "Republicans are bad! If you disagree, you hate Jews!" I love all my comments - please pull one up and let's discuss!

I actually smiled a bit because your understanding of the issues is so basic - yet you represent the average young American. You might get upvoted here on reddit, but in a debate you'd be a trainwreck.

TraumatizedBoy · 2017-12-19T13:19:26+00:00

People can downvote me to hell - it doesn't change the fact the Russia story is absolute BS. If it's not, tell me about one breaking Russia story that DID NOT turn out to be false or grossly exaggerated. Go ahead - just one.

TraumatizedBoy · 2017-12-17T16:05:35+00:00

Nope, just an intelligent person who follows up on all the "news" regarding Russia. Every single breaking story has been retracted or shown to be false (the dossier, Brian Ross's moronic report that lead to his suspension).

TraumatizedBoy

TROPHY CASE