Search results for query: *

Who is "they"?

Now you're just stalling. That link says nothing about pipelines at all. That's hardly relevant since DAPL isn't such a line. Not at all. And you've even repeated again exactly what I've understood your argument to be: ... the existing pipeline structure can handle and is being used to...

You said, specifically: ... just as we use it (existing pipeline infrastructure) now to handle the current oil glut. You can either present something to support this claim or you can retract it. But our discussion will not advance until you do one of those things. You cannot simply make...

None of that has anything to do with your claim that existing pipelines are able to meet the transportation demands of increased oil production in North Dakota. That claim is so obviously wrong that you've now apparently given up any attempts to support it in favor of Gish galloping onto more...

By getting rid of the long-outdated economic system that requires every person to labor forty hours a week to provide themselves a standard of living that hasn't really improved in nearly fifty years.

No. We cannot. You are just plain wrong about this. Except that we don't. We use trains. You are wrong about this. I get it: Expose everyone else to the risk. You have officially made the jump from ignorant to evil. A false dichotomy - as anyone who's investigated the matter well...

The claim was made that we can use existing pipeline infrastructure to transport the oil that would otherwise go through DAPL. Snark all you want. That claim is false.

We aren't talking about supply of oil meeting demand; we're talking about supply of pipelines meeting the demand for transporting the oil. Right now they cannot meet that demand and the slack is being picked up by rail cars.

That's not a proposal. That's just a gripe. So what do you actually propose? Be specific.

If the current lines could carry the load, they'd be carrying it. There are two ways to update a pipeline/route to move more volume: a) dig up the current pipes and lay bigger ones, or b) lay new pipe next to the current pipes. So which option do you like and which lines do you want to upgrade?

Then what is your proposal?

If existing pipelines could meet the demand, they'd already be meeting it.

Language is the natural result of two human brains attempting to communicate.

The Anti-Pipeline Argument is Evil on it's Face If we don't get the oil from anywhere, then we need a replacement. The welfare of billions of people is dependent on the energy we get from oil. We don't have a replacement. So it is only moral that we continue to use oil to provide for the...

I haven't seen it. Could you post the link for my sake?

Unfortunately "the ISP should just figure it out" isn't an answer to the question I asked. It's just flippant dismissal of the problem. Too bad.

A lot of words - still no answer. When it costs $X to run a network that can't handle Netflix traffic and $X+Y to run a network that can, who should pay the $Y? Be specific and stop dodging. Good thing I never compared the Internet to a 'big truck', then. I'd hate to have to feel bad...

You didn't answer the questions I asked. Building and maintaining networks that can handle stuff like Netflix and Hulu streaming costs a lot more money than building networks that do not have to cope with such traffic. So who should pay for that? It's a simple question to answer. No. I am...

They want to be paid in line with what it costs them to maintain and develop the network infrastructure and have decided - like software companies and like state licensing bureaus and DoTs - that a larger share of those payments should come from those whose use is the heaviest, most demanding...

That's a pretty slimy position to take. Netflix profits from its use of the Internet and from everyone else's easy access to it. A not uncommon problem. Failure to foresee the popularity of a novel product is nothing new and not restricted to ISPs. What do you believe to be the best way to...