Re: [Update: More devices, fix incoming] Google Home Max appears to be killing some WiFi networks

jorusfett — Mon, 15 Jan 2018 02:58:58 -0000

Same exact issue on the Frontier Quantum Router (exact model as Verizon). 1st Gen Chromecast, and Google Home Mini. The problems started when I added the mini to my home network. Used the 5G connection, and it would typically drop overnight. I just received a replacement router from Frontier and had the same problem again (5G network disconnecting). I moved the mini over to 2.4Ghz, and same problem (this time it knocked out the 2.4Ghz connection).

I removed the Chromecast and mini today, and so far have had zero issues with my router.

Re: Limbaugh is not alone - response to Bob Graef editorial of 2/4/09 - Marysville Globe

jorusfett — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 22:15:46 -0000

Dennis,
I have to jump in here and mention the obvious right-wing talking points spewed out by Limbaugh & Co.

"Total government control of our health care system? At 75 I would not have received a bypass operation with them in charge. Wait months for operations, as in Canada. Oh, yeah."

First off, how good is our health system now? According to a WHO report done a few years ago, the US was ranked #37 in overall health care against other industrialized nations. The US also ranked #1 in health related expenditures, most of this money in the hands of FOR PROFIT health insurance companies (median administrative costs for private insurance: 24%, median administrative costs for government run health care: 2%).

I will use myself as an example. Last year (2008) my family and I spent over $14,000 in health care costs for premiums, prescriptions, co-pays, etc. That came out to about 24% of my income. Under a universal health care system, I would only pay 7% out of my salary for health care. I would be more than willing to shell that out.

In regards to the government controlling your health care? Right now, FOR PROFIT health insurance companies dictate who you can see and what procedures you can/can't have. The government would not be in the business to make money off of health care. Maybe you should ask the millionaire/billionaire CEO's of the health insurance companies how much they really care about the quality of their insurance for people.
Also, having universal health care would remove the burden off of employers to shell out some of the premiums for their employees, thus allowing (if the company is ethically good) the company to pass on those savings to the employees in the way of higher wages, etc. It would also increase competition among companies, because you wouldn't have to worry about losing your health care if you changed jobs. Right now, I and many other people, feel we are essentially tied to our employer because we are afraid of losing our health care benefits. Health care should be a right, not a privilege.

With regards to your bypass surgery and comparison to Canada....if you did some research, you would find out that the average wait time for a bypass surgery is 24 days. They use a system called, critical patients first, non-critical to the back of the line. The United States isn't much better. An example that I can relate to is waiting for over 2 months to get my knee operated on. So for over two months, I had excruciating pain while walking or bending my knee. This isn't because of lack of a critical case, but more of waiting for approval from the insurance company and also waiting in line behind people that are having elective surgeries. In the US, it's a first come, first served mentality in the health care industry. Even some ER's are like this too.

The quality of health care is very poor in the US compared to other so called 'socialist' nations around the world. In the US, if you are rich, you will have great health care. Screw everybody else.

Here is a link to some good information about the state of our health care system.
http://www.commonwealthfund...

"Reinstitution of the fairness doctrine? If liberals have something interesting to say, they can find a sponsor to pay for the air time."

The fairness doctrine was dumped by Reagan in 1987 under pressure by conservatives. Prior to that, all media companies had to provide balanced broadcasting. I don't see anything wrong with that at all. Now what we have a handful of media companies owned by corporate conservatives whose only idea is to make money, no matter what the cost, even if it results in unethical behavior by the people they employ. I bet if Rush had to compete against any left leaning talk host, he would actually do some research before spewing out lies and hate speech because there would someone on the other side keeping him in check, and vice verse. Wasn't he the one that called for riots in Denver last year? What happened with his illegal drug use? We don't hear about that because the company he works for owns all the other stations that would actually report on this information, so it's a non issue to talk about in the media. With the fairness doctrine in place, he would have been kicked off of radio completely.
“Close Gitmo? Maybe you want them in a prison near you. Not me. They should be tried in military court. They do not deserve coverage by the Geneva convention. They were free lancers on the field of battle, not connected to any government entity.”
First off, if they close Gitmo, our status in the world would move up a notch. Since that place has been open, some of the most atrocious torture has taken place to these prisoners. Of the 800 that have been detained there, only 64 had any ties to terrorism or actively engaging the US on the battlefield. Most people were turned in for money by regional warlords. These people were enemies of said warlord, and what better way than to turn them in to the US army accusing them of being in league with Al-Queda. What is your reason for not allowing them rights under the Geneva Convention? Is it because they don’t wear uniforms? The conventional battlefield changed after World War II, where each army had to wear uniforms, etc. Since then, warfare has been more of a guerilla type of warfare. In Afghanistan, there was no army in place, just a government. Did all the people they captured over there become POW’s? Or were they all sent to Gitmo? I am sure if some freelance American was captured in Afghanistan or Iraq, that you would be screaming to give them rights under the Geneva Convention. Can’t have it one way and not the other. The US decided to change semantics by calling these people ‘enemy combatants’ instead of POW’s. This allowed them to skirt the Geneva Conventions by semantics only.
In all honesty, how on earth would you believe that the government would send these people from Gitmo to your local neighborhood jail? This is beyond absurd. This is pure ignorance. The initial plan (since it’s not finalized) is to extradite these people back to their home countries. The people that their countries don’t want them, will be tried in a US court and held in a military prison, thereby making them a POW. The one thing that does put some doubt in my mind about the detainees at Gitmo, is if they weren’t terrorists before, they sure are now thanks to the mistreatment of them over the past 7 years by the previous administration.
You should really research things before forming a basis for your opinion. You can find all kinds of facts in the library or on the internet. It’s all out there and not hard to find.

Gary Thompson
Marysville

Disqus - Latest Comments for jorusfett

Re: [Update: More devices, fix incoming] Google Home Max appears to be killing some WiFi networks

Re: Limbaugh is not alone - response to Bob Graef editorial of 2/4/09 - Marysville Globe