No, my problem is that I don't trust the lawmakers to not put a bunch of things into the law that would make it a very bad thing, especially if it is several hundred (or the way this Congress likes to write laws, several thousand) pages long. When Congressmen start saying, "It's unreasonable to expect us to read bills before we vote on them and we wouldn't understand them anyway", I start saying, "Then don't pass anything."
That is ultimately the problem with "Net Neutrality" legislation. It either answers your question "yes" and thus becomes something that stifles innovation, or it becomes complicated and easily subverted into something that allows the government to regulate the content of the Internet (and probably stifles innovation).
Really? Have you read the bills that have been proposed in Congress? Have you listened to what various members of government have said about regulating the Internet?
You are right about the Second Amendment. If it was shorter, it would be better.
Actually, I consider the Bill of Rights to be one of the most efficiently written pieces of law. The Founding Fathers knew that they could not foresee all of the possible situations that would occur, so they didn't try. They laid out basic principles and counted on the good sense of their successors.
I am perfectly happy to have no bill at all, but I would find a simple short bill acceptable. A five page bill could probably be acceptable...a bill that is over 100 pages on this subject is in all cases unacceptable.
The difference is that I get to choose which people decide what happens to my packets when that decision is made by the ISP. If it is done by a bureaucrat, I have no choice in who decides what happens to my packets, that decision is made by the majority (ideally) or by the politically connected (in which case how different is it from when the company does it?).
I have found that judging people by the company they keep is a very reliable way to judge somebody who is a newcomer to a field. This is not to say that I trust Zogby, just that I trust Nate Silver less.
Or we could oppose all attempts by the government to regulate what can be said on the Internet. And I'm sorry, what we will get from a "Net Nuetrality" law will be like haggis made with rotten oats.
You should read some of the replies to my reply to you, they mostly seem to be Net Nuetrality supporters, yet they seem to think that Net Nuetrality is more than "an ISP may not prioritize or filter Internet traffic based on source or destination." Which is the problem. You think that that is all Net Nuetrality is, yet a lot of other people want it to be more than that. I think those other people are using "Net Nuetrality" to pass things that you might not agree with and that I certainly do not agree with.
Oh, so Net Nuetrality isn't just "an ISP may not prioritize or filter Internet traffic based on source or destination"? That is where the problem comes in. As soon as Net Nuetrality is more than "an ISP may not prioritize or filter Internet traffic based on source or destination", things become complicated and not everyone agrees that it is a good thing anymore.
The poster I replied to claimed that Net Nuetrality was "an ISP may not prioritize or filter Internet traffic based on source or destination" and nothing more, now you say that is more than that.
I, also, disagree with TFA that "it raises the specter of some future administration using that power to crack down on its opponents." It raises the specter of this administration using that power to crack down on its opponents or those who disseminate information they would prefer not be widely known.
Probably some actual knowledge of the issue, rather than right-wing propaganda. You know, actually knowing what Net Neutrality means, which you obviously don't.
But no actual knowledge of the way government works. The reason that many people oppose government enforced Net Neutrality is because we know that the government won't limit itself to saying that "an ISP may not prioritize or filter Internet traffic based on source or destination". There have been several Net Nuetrality bills proposed, have any of them been less than 10 pages? If all they were going to do is what you propose, then there would be no need for them to be more than one page. The problem is that every attempt to introduce "Net Neutrality" has contained more than just the limited regulation that you say you want.
If a bill was proposed that said only what you proposed, I would be fine with that, but such a bill will never be proposed.
Its that they've been caught, not once but several times, reporting stories they knew or should have known were false, as fact, because the stories in question supported that bias.
It is more than that, in addition to reporting stories that they should have known were false (for example, the story about John McCain having an affair during the last election cycle), they have ignored other stories that had more evidence behind them (for example the story about John Edwards having an affair in about the same time frame) that turned out to be true, but didn't support their bias. I use these two stories because I don't have to do any research to be sure that my recollection of the details supports my point, rather than because they are the best examples of how this process works.
If you look at the history of the Fairness Doctrine, you will discover that the reason that the country was less divided while it was in force was because the Fairness Doctrine acted to suppress opinions that did not agree with the establishment by presenting them as ideas only supported by crackpots.
So, actually, the country was more corporate controlled when the Fairness Doctrine was in force (although it was more united).
So, a guy who got his start in blogging on the DailyKos is supposed to be a good arbiter of trustowrthiness?
Personally, based on Nate Silver's opinion of Zogby, Zogby has moved up in my estimation. If Nate Silver was able to get a following from the DailyKos, he has to be a complete leftwing nutjob, who says things that support the pre-conceived ideas of other left wing nutjobs.
Apple still doesn't pay dividends (and it's IPO was before Microsoft's). But based on that timeline, Google has a few years before one should hold its lack of dividend against it vs Microsoft.
Additionally, the best way to know that a company has solid financials is that it offers a consistent dividend. A company that does not offer dividends can get away with accounting tricks for a long time, a company that offers a dividend cannot have a profit that is all accounting tricks for very long.
Right, so they will accuse person B, because why should they look for someone else when person B is a close match for the DNA and he already has a criminal record (he jaywalked 5 years ago).
You misread that article. It wasn't an "expert witness" who said that the odds of a false positive are 1 in 2.69 quadrillion and it wasn't testimony. It was "Prosecutors", and all that means is that they don't know what they are talking about.
So basically, it reconciles very easily: the prosecutors were talking out of their ass and trying to make it look like their case was better than it was.
Except that the DNA tests currently used to identify an individual from samples collected at the scene of a crime do not uniquely identify an individual. DNA tests, except in a very limited number of crimes (such as certain rapes), do not provide a good basis for conviction (although they may provide a good basis for exoneration).
It doesn't even require the fabrication of evidence to be bad. Considering the nature of current DNA matching procedures, the odds become fairly high that more than one individual in the database will match the DNA evidence.
There is one significant difference between Apple, Google and Microsoft, IBM. Neither Apple nor Google pays a dividend, that means that the only way you make any money from Apple or Google is if someone else is willing to pay you more than you paid for your stocks. Personally, I believe that a company that does not pay dividends is a bad stock investment.
You are also overlooking the fact that Apple keeps all of the profit, so that all the investors get is the nice happy feeling of knowing that they own a peice of Apple. Whereas Microsoft actually divies up the profit among its shareholders, so that they actually get to get a share of the profits.
Slashdot Mirror
No, my problem is that I don't trust the lawmakers to not put a bunch of things into the law that would make it a very bad thing, especially if it is several hundred (or the way this Congress likes to write laws, several thousand) pages long. When Congressmen start saying, "It's unreasonable to expect us to read bills before we vote on them and we wouldn't understand them anyway", I start saying, "Then don't pass anything."
That is ultimately the problem with "Net Neutrality" legislation. It either answers your question "yes" and thus becomes something that stifles innovation, or it becomes complicated and easily subverted into something that allows the government to regulate the content of the Internet (and probably stifles innovation).
Oh how cute, you think that the name of laws actually reflects what is in them.
Isnt that the social responsibility of a people when their gov't gets a bit too uppity?
Yeah...You asked why they would want to pass this law.
Really? Have you read the bills that have been proposed in Congress? Have you listened to what various members of government have said about regulating the Internet?
You are right about the Second Amendment. If it was shorter, it would be better.
Actually, I consider the Bill of Rights to be one of the most efficiently written pieces of law. The Founding Fathers knew that they could not foresee all of the possible situations that would occur, so they didn't try. They laid out basic principles and counted on the good sense of their successors.
I am perfectly happy to have no bill at all, but I would find a simple short bill acceptable. A five page bill could probably be acceptable...a bill that is over 100 pages on this subject is in all cases unacceptable.
The difference is that I get to choose which people decide what happens to my packets when that decision is made by the ISP. If it is done by a bureaucrat, I have no choice in who decides what happens to my packets, that decision is made by the majority (ideally) or by the politically connected (in which case how different is it from when the company does it?).
I have found that judging people by the company they keep is a very reliable way to judge somebody who is a newcomer to a field. This is not to say that I trust Zogby, just that I trust Nate Silver less.
Or we could oppose all attempts by the government to regulate what can be said on the Internet. And I'm sorry, what we will get from a "Net Nuetrality" law will be like haggis made with rotten oats.
You should read some of the replies to my reply to you, they mostly seem to be Net Nuetrality supporters, yet they seem to think that Net Nuetrality is more than "an ISP may not prioritize or filter Internet traffic based on source or destination." Which is the problem. You think that that is all Net Nuetrality is, yet a lot of other people want it to be more than that. I think those other people are using "Net Nuetrality" to pass things that you might not agree with and that I certainly do not agree with.
Oh, so Net Nuetrality isn't just "an ISP may not prioritize or filter Internet traffic based on source or destination"? That is where the problem comes in. As soon as Net Nuetrality is more than "an ISP may not prioritize or filter Internet traffic based on source or destination", things become complicated and not everyone agrees that it is a good thing anymore.
The poster I replied to claimed that Net Nuetrality was "an ISP may not prioritize or filter Internet traffic based on source or destination" and nothing more, now you say that is more than that.
Because they are afraid that we will use it to coordinate against them.
I, also, disagree with TFA that "it raises the specter of some future administration using that power to crack down on its opponents." It raises the specter of this administration using that power to crack down on its opponents or those who disseminate information they would prefer not be widely known.
Probably some actual knowledge of the issue, rather than right-wing propaganda. You know, actually knowing what Net Neutrality means, which you obviously don't.
But no actual knowledge of the way government works. The reason that many people oppose government enforced Net Neutrality is because we know that the government won't limit itself to saying that "an ISP may not prioritize or filter Internet traffic based on source or destination". There have been several Net Nuetrality bills proposed, have any of them been less than 10 pages? If all they were going to do is what you propose, then there would be no need for them to be more than one page. The problem is that every attempt to introduce "Net Neutrality" has contained more than just the limited regulation that you say you want.
If a bill was proposed that said only what you proposed, I would be fine with that, but such a bill will never be proposed.
Its that they've been caught, not once but several times, reporting stories they knew or should have known were false, as fact, because the stories in question supported that bias.
It is more than that, in addition to reporting stories that they should have known were false (for example, the story about John McCain having an affair during the last election cycle), they have ignored other stories that had more evidence behind them (for example the story about John Edwards having an affair in about the same time frame) that turned out to be true, but didn't support their bias. I use these two stories because I don't have to do any research to be sure that my recollection of the details supports my point, rather than because they are the best examples of how this process works.
If you look at the history of the Fairness Doctrine, you will discover that the reason that the country was less divided while it was in force was because the Fairness Doctrine acted to suppress opinions that did not agree with the establishment by presenting them as ideas only supported by crackpots.
So, actually, the country was more corporate controlled when the Fairness Doctrine was in force (although it was more united).
So, a guy who got his start in blogging on the DailyKos is supposed to be a good arbiter of trustowrthiness?
Personally, based on Nate Silver's opinion of Zogby, Zogby has moved up in my estimation. If Nate Silver was able to get a following from the DailyKos, he has to be a complete leftwing nutjob, who says things that support the pre-conceived ideas of other left wing nutjobs.
Apple still doesn't pay dividends (and it's IPO was before Microsoft's). But based on that timeline, Google has a few years before one should hold its lack of dividend against it vs Microsoft.
Additionally, the best way to know that a company has solid financials is that it offers a consistent dividend. A company that does not offer dividends can get away with accounting tricks for a long time, a company that offers a dividend cannot have a profit that is all accounting tricks for very long.
Right, so they will accuse person B, because why should they look for someone else when person B is a close match for the DNA and he already has a criminal record (he jaywalked 5 years ago).
You misread that article. It wasn't an "expert witness" who said that the odds of a false positive are 1 in 2.69 quadrillion and it wasn't testimony. It was "Prosecutors", and all that means is that they don't know what they are talking about.
So basically, it reconciles very easily: the prosecutors were talking out of their ass and trying to make it look like their case was better than it was.
It uniquely identifies a person.
Except that the DNA tests currently used to identify an individual from samples collected at the scene of a crime do not uniquely identify an individual. DNA tests, except in a very limited number of crimes (such as certain rapes), do not provide a good basis for conviction (although they may provide a good basis for exoneration).
It doesn't even require the fabrication of evidence to be bad. Considering the nature of current DNA matching procedures, the odds become fairly high that more than one individual in the database will match the DNA evidence.
There is one significant difference between Apple, Google and Microsoft, IBM. Neither Apple nor Google pays a dividend, that means that the only way you make any money from Apple or Google is if someone else is willing to pay you more than you paid for your stocks. Personally, I believe that a company that does not pay dividends is a bad stock investment.
You are also overlooking the fact that Apple keeps all of the profit, so that all the investors get is the nice happy feeling of knowing that they own a peice of Apple. Whereas Microsoft actually divies up the profit among its shareholders, so that they actually get to get a share of the profits.