Slashdot Mirror
EFF Reviews the Verizon-Google Net Neutrality Deal
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "The EFF has written an analysis of the Net Neutrality deal brokered between Verizon and Google. While the EFF agrees with substantial portions of it, such as giving the FCC only enough authority to investigate complaints, rather than giving them a blank check to create regulations, there are a number of troubling issues with the agreement. In particular, they're concerned that what constitutes 'reasonable' network management is in the eye of the beholder and they don't like giving a free pass to anyone who claims they're attempting to block unlawful content, even when doing so in such a way that they interfere with lawful activities. On balance, while there are some good ideas about how to get Net Neutrality with minimal government involvement, there are serious flaws in the agreement that would allow ISPs to interfere with any service they wanted to because there is no algorithm that can correctly determine which numbers are currently illegal."
Lucky. I can't. The only option for me is Verizon FiOS.
AT&T and Verizon both own major Internet backbones. It doesn't matter if you use cellular or satellite your data is still extremely likely to run over their networks. That's the problem with the current Internet setup. If those 2 companies decide to charge for faster data (or rather charge to not slow your data down) then it doesn't matter what ISP you use, you are going to be affected.
How many corporations do that?
The original Corporations (eg East India Trading Company) were expressly given the permission to fight wars against other nations to establish their trading outposts and protect their "turf".
Even in reasonably modern times, corporations had hired militias to gun down strikers' wives and children with impunity.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Well, let's see...according to this study in The Lancet, approximately 5 million people die/year from smoking. Since your timespan is over the last 100 years, 100 x 5 million = 500,000,000. Granted, the 5 million number probably wasn't consistent throughout the whole of the 100 year span you're proposing, but corporations still win in a landslide.
And, before you reply how I know you're going to reply: the link between smoking and lung cancer was first identified in 1920. The addictive nature of nicotine's been known to the tobacco companies since at least 1970. That gives you 20 million and 450 million deaths just from the tobacco companies who knowingly marketed lethal products depending on when exactly you want to place the blame on them. We can also include DeBeers (responsible for countless deaths over the last 140 years financing insurgencies and wars in order to secure their diamond monopoly), Monsanto (responsible for over 50 superfund sites in the US that have contaminated and poisoned individuals in the area), Chevron (who dumped 18 billion gallons of toxins into rivers used by communities in the Amazon resulting in cancer, birth defects, etc), Pfizer (who sells AIDS drugs at higher prices in areas where AIDS is most prevalent and least likely to be able to afford to purchase the medication), Nestlé (melanine in Chinese baby milk), WalMart (child labor in hazerdous conditions), Coca-Cola (assassinations of union folks in Columbia), and Dow (leading manufacturer of chemical weapons) if you like.
Which is more painful? Going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon? Find out!
http://www.workorspoon.com