You don't understand. "Free market" means free for the businesses to do what they want. Any business to business disputes will be handled via the courts, and any business to consumer disputes will be handled with the phrase "screw you, peasant".
It's naive to think that the free market evangelists actually believe in a real free market.
Even if they have no plans to offer service in some regions, they still don't want anyone else doing so either. Some state legislatures have forbidden municipal broadband at the request of giant telecoms.
The Muggle Press misrepresents a lot of things here. They talk about ISPs being the issue, because that's easier for the audience to understand and relate to. In reality the problem is in the guts of the internet, where the big players control not only the internet but content as well. Sure, if your ISP happens to be Comcast, then yes, Comcast is trying to screw over the internet competition. But if your ISP is a local cable company, or a rural broadband company, they are going to be wanting net neutrality for basic business reasons (not pissing off their customers).
The reason they want to give FTC authority is precisely because the FTC has no teeth. The entire point of this is because Steve Bannon and other anti-government types managed to get Trump to approve their anti-government wishlist for political appointees. We've got an education secretary that doesn't believe in public schools, a secretary of state that has laid off enough diplomats that we have no more diplomatic power, a secretary of the treasury who wants to repeal Dodd-Frank and other safeguards added after the last financial crisis, and so forth. It is no wonder that the chair of the FCC is intent at shredding regulations.
Whether this is to get a big under-the-table bonus from the giant corporations, or because they're genuinely intent on destroying government in order to "rebuild" it, they are most certainly not acting in the best interests of the citizens.
Unfortunately they were also screwed under the old scheme because the big networking companies have gone and bought off state legislatures to outlaw competition.
Anyone who thinks that the big cable companies can be trusted has not been paying attention to the news.
Not true. No one ever had to prove their were net neutral. Instead the FCC (in the past) assumes they are until complaints arrive.
If the hypothetical requirement to prove you are net neutral before you can start a new network were true, then why is it that the largest companies are the ones who lobbied and paid to remove net neutrality while the small players are mostly all for net neutrality? If government requirements are burdensome, then those most burdened would have been the smallest players, whereas someone like Comcast wouldn't be slowed down at all by this.
From day one of the union, rights granted by the consitution were denied to a majority of the residents. The very same constitution that has the bill of rights in it is also has clauses that maintain the system of slavery. It's been a fraud from the very beginning. We are however making progress, albeit very slowly. We are certainly more free today than we have been in the past.
And that is an outdated idea that should not be hanging around. This is no longer 1776. We no longer have different cultures in each state, we are a united country. The rights granted in one state apply to all states. We originally maintained a very loose federation of states primarily because of the issue of some states wanting to keep slavery. For that reason the constitution was deliberately weakened so that the slave states would join.
In the intervening years, this despicable situation became so bad that we had a civil war. The old rules of granting power to the individual states was changed at this point. The old system started to die and the new system started to replace it. Never forget that "states rights" were code words for supporting slavery, and later became code words for supporting the apartheid system in the South.
Pointing to the pre civil-war federal system and saying "that's the way it should be" is disinenguous and ignorant of the history of that time.
In practice that paper is really only needed in a few limited instances, which can all be covered by one person on a team.
A lot of this bickering about needing a paper before one can be an engineer sounds very similar to those claiming you can't be a plumber without a union card.
All consumers in the US also have a choice of one and only one internet. Net neutrality absolutely affects the internet backbone. And the backbone is where the damage is going to happen. We have tons of ISPs, not just a few, so if Netflix is going to be throttled then it will be by the backbone owners.
ISPs serving the general public aren't in danger here, I think they'll do just fine. What is more troubling is what happens to the core of the internet that the general public doesn't often see. What happens at the backbone when AT&T or Comcast decide to play favorites? What if they slow down Netflix in favor of Amazon? Or vice versa if you prefer Amazon and now it's slowed down and Netflix is faster and cheaper?
For common carriers, government insisted that they play fair. This makes sense when the government assisted AT&T originally by granting a monopoly, and so after the breakup the holders of the shards of AT&T had to continue playing fair. Today the internet is a common carrier, the big owners did not create that backbone they own today. At the more local level, the cable companies created their infrastructure but only with help from the local government. The internet belongs to the people, not to the corporations.
If they get rid of net neutrality, then we must break up these companies the same way the original AT&T was broken up. We cannot afford to have the internet controlled by the same companies that also own movies, telephones, information, social media, etc.
We know from history that companies will absolutely take advantage of any lack of regulatory framework. Without any doubt we know they will abuse their power.
I think Net Neutrality has been mischaracterized in the media. Too often I hear it's about ISPs, such as those that serve the general public individually. But it's not, because net neutrality more directly involves the backbone and who can get access to it. Thus if Comcast decides they don't like Netflix because it competes with some of their business, they can raise the prices for Netflix (or lower the price for everone else). The big internet players will take advantage of this, they will screw over the smaller companies if given a chance. It's painfully clear that the internet infrastructure, from the backbone to fiber to wireless, is "common carrier".
Things have become so polarized now, that if you disagree with someone's views you are automatically called a dirty . The two major parties have taken every single issue and divied them up, neither allowed to be moderate on any issue. The minor parties on the other hand are mostly extremist variants. There isn't a moderate party anymore. I think this is because few people bother creating a political party unless they have very strongly held views. But if you look at the US public it's very much in the center of the parties and not bimodal.
Even so, from the center it is clear to see when there's an ulterior motive in play, and they're certainly not weighing the public good anymore at the FCC.
It will be like cable. Lots of bandwidth at the start, user is very happy. Later everyone uses it, more and more of the fixed bandwidth gets used by the neighbors, original user is pissed that performance has gone down.
Poster is unaware of the existence of a larger world outside of the United States. Everyone else please take care to only discuss the outside world elsewhere lest poster is be shocked by the sudden revelation.
But why should we require such extensive legal documenation for this? A good faith judgement of the patient's wishes should be enough. Yes, the family could sue; but the family could also sue if the patient gave explicit verbal instructions aobut their wishes that was not written down; and there are those who would sue regardless of the presence of a legal document.
For example, when put on a respirator, the machine will breathe for the patient. The body rejects this, it wants to breath at its own rhythm. To resolve that problem they paralyze the patient so that only the machine has the capability of forcing air into or out of the lungs. The patient is often not unconscious here, but may be awake and paralized while this machine is stuck down their throat and doing all the breathing. In many of these cases the patient will never be taken off the respirator for the rest of their lives.
First, a lot of people in the UK don't consider themselves a part of Europe. Second, there was no evidence that the US could have done anything for that baby and the doctors were of the opinion that the experimental treatment would prolong suffering. There was no murder involved.
As related to the topic of this original story, being kept on life support unnaturally is often not in the well being of a patient. Many doctors have their own DNR orders because they know the torture that these actions can bring. The same doctors however are forced to rescuscitate patients in the US if there is no DNR order. This issue is not about dying with dignity, but dying without torture.
They tried to make me learn one, but it was a weird car that had the stick shift on the side of the steering colum (like an auto). That was difficult to use. But more importantly they tried to teach me in the mountains where there was no traffic, and forgot to tell me the part about having to use the clutch when braking, with the whole family in the car. After much screaming and some crying they never asked me to try again.
I did learn it though when buying a cheap car in college, where I was taught sanely by a friend using an empty parking lot.
Paper maps are indeed highly useful. Not everyone has smartphone data plans or strong enough network strength or always-reliable batteries to download maps at any time. Being on vacation and having a Thomas Brother's map available is quite useful in many ways. But I'm being silly in thinking that hipsters ever get out of the city.
Pagers? I miss text messages quite often on my phone, seeing them only a day later sometimes. The beep is not often heard while walking, and checking your phone constantly for signs of change is a possible sign of madness. But there's no way to miss the insistent beep and buzz of a pager, and their battery is very reliable compared to smart phones.
And when did busy signals go away? Land lines are still common.
For manual transmissions, I did have one and a European I had as a passenger remarked "I didn't know Americans knew how to use those!" You still often need a manual transmission if you want good gas mileage and don't want a new hybrid, have to get an older car that you can afford and it has a manual, drive a tractor or utility vehicle, and so forth.
To be honest, there could be a use for this (and it is optional). Some of the humor comes from Microsoft again deciding unilaterally what the customers want which ultimately ends up a failure. But if you look at web apps, we already have different applications on the browswer in different tabs. This idea from MS is essentially that without a browser, you can have your Word "window" also have an Excel tab and a browser tab, etc. It is an interesting idea.
I certainly prefer windows side-by-side myself; and putting separate "tasks" into separate desktops. However in a space reduced display (tablets, laptops with no external monitors) then the tabbed method could be handy. I just don't expect Microsoft to be the people to do this well.
Slashdot Mirror
That'th nothing. I'm an Athropothophical Ethoterithitht.
You don't understand. "Free market" means free for the businesses to do what they want. Any business to business disputes will be handled via the courts, and any business to consumer disputes will be handled with the phrase "screw you, peasant".
It's naive to think that the free market evangelists actually believe in a real free market.
Even if they have no plans to offer service in some regions, they still don't want anyone else doing so either. Some state legislatures have forbidden municipal broadband at the request of giant telecoms.
The Muggle Press misrepresents a lot of things here. They talk about ISPs being the issue, because that's easier for the audience to understand and relate to. In reality the problem is in the guts of the internet, where the big players control not only the internet but content as well. Sure, if your ISP happens to be Comcast, then yes, Comcast is trying to screw over the internet competition. But if your ISP is a local cable company, or a rural broadband company, they are going to be wanting net neutrality for basic business reasons (not pissing off their customers).
The reason they want to give FTC authority is precisely because the FTC has no teeth. The entire point of this is because Steve Bannon and other anti-government types managed to get Trump to approve their anti-government wishlist for political appointees. We've got an education secretary that doesn't believe in public schools, a secretary of state that has laid off enough diplomats that we have no more diplomatic power, a secretary of the treasury who wants to repeal Dodd-Frank and other safeguards added after the last financial crisis, and so forth. It is no wonder that the chair of the FCC is intent at shredding regulations.
Whether this is to get a big under-the-table bonus from the giant corporations, or because they're genuinely intent on destroying government in order to "rebuild" it, they are most certainly not acting in the best interests of the citizens.
Unfortunately they were also screwed under the old scheme because the big networking companies have gone and bought off state legislatures to outlaw competition.
Anyone who thinks that the big cable companies can be trusted has not been paying attention to the news.
Not true. No one ever had to prove their were net neutral. Instead the FCC (in the past) assumes they are until complaints arrive.
If the hypothetical requirement to prove you are net neutral before you can start a new network were true, then why is it that the largest companies are the ones who lobbied and paid to remove net neutrality while the small players are mostly all for net neutrality? If government requirements are burdensome, then those most burdened would have been the smallest players, whereas someone like Comcast wouldn't be slowed down at all by this.
From day one of the union, rights granted by the consitution were denied to a majority of the residents. The very same constitution that has the bill of rights in it is also has clauses that maintain the system of slavery. It's been a fraud from the very beginning. We are however making progress, albeit very slowly. We are certainly more free today than we have been in the past.
And that is an outdated idea that should not be hanging around. This is no longer 1776. We no longer have different cultures in each state, we are a united country. The rights granted in one state apply to all states. We originally maintained a very loose federation of states primarily because of the issue of some states wanting to keep slavery. For that reason the constitution was deliberately weakened so that the slave states would join.
In the intervening years, this despicable situation became so bad that we had a civil war. The old rules of granting power to the individual states was changed at this point. The old system started to die and the new system started to replace it. Never forget that "states rights" were code words for supporting slavery, and later became code words for supporting the apartheid system in the South.
Pointing to the pre civil-war federal system and saying "that's the way it should be" is disinenguous and ignorant of the history of that time.
But it's ok to give the same power to unelected corporations?
In practice that paper is really only needed in a few limited instances, which can all be covered by one person on a team.
A lot of this bickering about needing a paper before one can be an engineer sounds very similar to those claiming you can't be a plumber without a union card.
All consumers in the US also have a choice of one and only one internet. Net neutrality absolutely affects the internet backbone. And the backbone is where the damage is going to happen. We have tons of ISPs, not just a few, so if Netflix is going to be throttled then it will be by the backbone owners.
ISPs serving the general public aren't in danger here, I think they'll do just fine. What is more troubling is what happens to the core of the internet that the general public doesn't often see. What happens at the backbone when AT&T or Comcast decide to play favorites? What if they slow down Netflix in favor of Amazon? Or vice versa if you prefer Amazon and now it's slowed down and Netflix is faster and cheaper?
For common carriers, government insisted that they play fair. This makes sense when the government assisted AT&T originally by granting a monopoly, and so after the breakup the holders of the shards of AT&T had to continue playing fair. Today the internet is a common carrier, the big owners did not create that backbone they own today. At the more local level, the cable companies created their infrastructure but only with help from the local government. The internet belongs to the people, not to the corporations.
If they get rid of net neutrality, then we must break up these companies the same way the original AT&T was broken up. We cannot afford to have the internet controlled by the same companies that also own movies, telephones, information, social media, etc.
We know from history that companies will absolutely take advantage of any lack of regulatory framework. Without any doubt we know they will abuse their power.
Why do you need a list of problems? Should we wait until the internet is broken before we put in some very light regulation?
I think Net Neutrality has been mischaracterized in the media. Too often I hear it's about ISPs, such as those that serve the general public individually. But it's not, because net neutrality more directly involves the backbone and who can get access to it. Thus if Comcast decides they don't like Netflix because it competes with some of their business, they can raise the prices for Netflix (or lower the price for everone else). The big internet players will take advantage of this, they will screw over the smaller companies if given a chance. It's painfully clear that the internet infrastructure, from the backbone to fiber to wireless, is "common carrier".
Things have become so polarized now, that if you disagree with someone's views you are automatically called a dirty . The two major parties have taken every single issue and divied them up, neither allowed to be moderate on any issue. The minor parties on the other hand are mostly extremist variants. There isn't a moderate party anymore. I think this is because few people bother creating a political party unless they have very strongly held views. But if you look at the US public it's very much in the center of the parties and not bimodal.
Even so, from the center it is clear to see when there's an ulterior motive in play, and they're certainly not weighing the public good anymore at the FCC.
It will be like cable. Lots of bandwidth at the start, user is very happy. Later everyone uses it, more and more of the fixed bandwidth gets used by the neighbors, original user is pissed that performance has gone down.
Poster is unaware of the existence of a larger world outside of the United States. Everyone else please take care to only discuss the outside world elsewhere lest poster is be shocked by the sudden revelation.
But why should we require such extensive legal documenation for this? A good faith judgement of the patient's wishes should be enough. Yes, the family could sue; but the family could also sue if the patient gave explicit verbal instructions aobut their wishes that was not written down; and there are those who would sue regardless of the presence of a legal document.
For example, when put on a respirator, the machine will breathe for the patient. The body rejects this, it wants to breath at its own rhythm. To resolve that problem they paralyze the patient so that only the machine has the capability of forcing air into or out of the lungs. The patient is often not unconscious here, but may be awake and paralized while this machine is stuck down their throat and doing all the breathing. In many of these cases the patient will never be taken off the respirator for the rest of their lives.
First, a lot of people in the UK don't consider themselves a part of Europe. Second, there was no evidence that the US could have done anything for that baby and the doctors were of the opinion that the experimental treatment would prolong suffering. There was no murder involved.
As related to the topic of this original story, being kept on life support unnaturally is often not in the well being of a patient. Many doctors have their own DNR orders because they know the torture that these actions can bring. The same doctors however are forced to rescuscitate patients in the US if there is no DNR order. This issue is not about dying with dignity, but dying without torture.
They tried to make me learn one, but it was a weird car that had the stick shift on the side of the steering colum (like an auto). That was difficult to use. But more importantly they tried to teach me in the mountains where there was no traffic, and forgot to tell me the part about having to use the clutch when braking, with the whole family in the car. After much screaming and some crying they never asked me to try again.
I did learn it though when buying a cheap car in college, where I was taught sanely by a friend using an empty parking lot.
Paper maps are indeed highly useful. Not everyone has smartphone data plans or strong enough network strength or always-reliable batteries to download maps at any time. Being on vacation and having a Thomas Brother's map available is quite useful in many ways. But I'm being silly in thinking that hipsters ever get out of the city.
Pagers? I miss text messages quite often on my phone, seeing them only a day later sometimes. The beep is not often heard while walking, and checking your phone constantly for signs of change is a possible sign of madness. But there's no way to miss the insistent beep and buzz of a pager, and their battery is very reliable compared to smart phones.
And when did busy signals go away? Land lines are still common.
For manual transmissions, I did have one and a European I had as a passenger remarked "I didn't know Americans knew how to use those!" You still often need a manual transmission if you want good gas mileage and don't want a new hybrid, have to get an older car that you can afford and it has a manual, drive a tractor or utility vehicle, and so forth.
To be honest, there could be a use for this (and it is optional). Some of the humor comes from Microsoft again deciding unilaterally what the customers want which ultimately ends up a failure. But if you look at web apps, we already have different applications on the browswer in different tabs. This idea from MS is essentially that without a browser, you can have your Word "window" also have an Excel tab and a browser tab, etc. It is an interesting idea.
I certainly prefer windows side-by-side myself; and putting separate "tasks" into separate desktops. However in a space reduced display (tablets, laptops with no external monitors) then the tabbed method could be handy. I just don't expect Microsoft to be the people to do this well.
I would argue that users only doing single tasking also probably shouldn't use Windows either and get something simpler instead.