Whilst this doesn't look like it's about Net Neutrality, it is about the neutrality of the internet and specifically the ISPs. If this 'three strikes' rule gets implemented, all of a sudden the legal system of the internet is no longer controlled by the courts, but by the RIAA and the MPAA and anything else with AA at the end. I'd say giving a group of companies the right to boot people they decide not to like off the internet is fairly biased, not very neutral at all.
First they came for alcohol, and that was okay, really - because they had lots of evidence to back up the fact that alcohol costs a society money and doesn't produce a net benefit to the people it affects. Then they came for cigarettes, and that was okay because - FUCK SMOKERS - and also because there was substantial evidence proving that smoking costs society money and doesn't produce a net benefit to the people it affects. Then they came for violent video games, and that wasn't okay because they had extrememly questionable evidence that it caused the problems mentioned, and more evidence (although equally questionable) that it did not.
So basically it's about evidence, proof, and the fact that penalising something you don't like is quite different from penalising something that is proven to kill directly (not indirectly, or might influence - smoking and alcohol make people fall over and die.)
This isn't a valid comparison people, two quite different issues.
Pfft, I used to have a machine that would grind the beans, make the coffee, bring it through and give me it. Oh wait, this is slashdot - we can't have girlfriends.
Do you really think they'll bundle the cheapie version with the average home PC? They'll bundle a middle-price version, good enough to cost a lot, not so good that it fulfils every user's requirements and keeps them from having to upgrade to a better copy later. Don't forget the business model is that the average user pays the MS tax on their PC and then never thinks about it again - never realising how much they paid for that one piece of software.
If that's true - maybe he really is in an argument - spreading lies and disinformation by day while he works to improve the company's reputation. Then by night he attacks his own article to state the real truth about the company, how they are the scum of the earth. I should write a film manuscript - this could be awesome.
Someone needs to realise that science is the most efficient road to victory. I'm hoping Obama sets his Civilisation to 100% research for a while, and aims for the Space Race victory condition. Alpha Centauri - here we come.
The difference is that Steam provides a valuable service that is a fair balance for the DRM it requires - plus I don't tend to be off the internet anyway.
I lose more games by misplacing the disc than I lose from Steam's DRM issues (Misplaced: dozens over the years / Steam ate: 0)
Also, the valuable services steam provides require online authentication to work (even if not all the time) so the requirement is somewhat justified.
It would be nice if Steam's Offline mode would work better, for example not requiring you to be online to activate it - and not 'running out of time' on your Offline Mode after a bit.
The problems there are with Steam are few, but significant: *No refund *Valve can ban your whole account if they suspect piracy *DVD copies of Steam games are effectively bulky CD-Keys to count for an online purchase.
You appear to have forgotten that with the overpopulation problem, we could do with pruning a few belligerent douche bags who think they know better than their doctor. Let *them* ignore doctor's advice without good reason, see if it kills *me*.
Kick unions out. Yeah, all that "Fair wages" and "Safe workplace" stuff really screws up the economy. Why don't they just get their ass back in the factories, and take that minimum wage up the ass. I mean, how dare they affect the margins! What assholes those unions are.
Gah, double post - but there were so many things wrong with your comment that I just had to reread it and groan in frustration again.
$5-10/month... you intend to subsist on a 10-30 user site?
We are entitled to an ad-free internet, or at least an annoying-ad-free, where we get to decide what's annoying.
And if every user of... say/. donated only $1, maybe even only $0.1 or $0.01. The site would do just fine for a good long while.
So popular sites have no real problem, what about smaller sites...well they need less advertising, because their hosting costs are smaller, not to mention the possibility that they have a small user base because they're simply part of the dross of the internet.
People pay for good content all over the internet, via mechandise, donations and subscriptions.
If your websites can't survive without forcing your ads down our throat - we don't need you.
Slashdot Mirror
Whilst this doesn't look like it's about Net Neutrality, it is about the neutrality of the internet and specifically the ISPs.
If this 'three strikes' rule gets implemented, all of a sudden the legal system of the internet is no longer controlled by the courts, but by the RIAA and the MPAA and anything else with AA at the end.
I'd say giving a group of companies the right to boot people they decide not to like off the internet is fairly biased, not very neutral at all.
First they came for alcohol, and that was okay, really - because they had lots of evidence to back up the fact that alcohol costs a society money and doesn't produce a net benefit to the people it affects.
Then they came for cigarettes, and that was okay because - FUCK SMOKERS - and also because there was substantial evidence proving that smoking costs society money and doesn't produce a net benefit to the people it affects.
Then they came for violent video games, and that wasn't okay because they had extrememly questionable evidence that it caused the problems mentioned, and more evidence (although equally questionable) that it did not.
So basically it's about evidence, proof, and the fact that penalising something you don't like is quite different from penalising something that is proven to kill directly (not indirectly, or might influence - smoking and alcohol make people fall over and die.)
This isn't a valid comparison people, two quite different issues.
Also, FUCK SMOKERS.
You don't?
Since when does good TV make for a good legal system?
Refering to Godwin must in itself be a Godwin - surely.
Pfft, I used to have a machine that would grind the beans, make the coffee, bring it through and give me it.
Oh wait, this is slashdot - we can't have girlfriends.
Someone after you obviously did.
Ha ha ha ha ha
Homeopathy
Ha ha ha ha ha.
You guys crack me up.
Your neighbor, hell no, give *me* that money.
That's the only ethical thing to do.
Also I'm a middle-eastern princess in need of saving and your bank account details.
Must be taken with food.
You say that to someone with an id one magnitude lower than your own?
Do you really think they'll bundle the cheapie version with the average home PC?
They'll bundle a middle-price version, good enough to cost a lot, not so good that it fulfils every user's requirements and keeps them from having to upgrade to a better copy later.
Don't forget the business model is that the average user pays the MS tax on their PC and then never thinks about it again - never realising how much they paid for that one piece of software.
You know that you are not a reliable source, right?
The one person you should never ask for an honest appraisal of someone, is that person.
If that's true - maybe he really is in an argument - spreading lies and disinformation by day while he works to improve the company's reputation.
Then by night he attacks his own article to state the real truth about the company, how they are the scum of the earth.
I should write a film manuscript - this could be awesome.
Someone needs to realise that science is the most efficient road to victory.
I'm hoping Obama sets his Civilisation to 100% research for a while, and aims for the Space Race victory condition.
Alpha Centauri - here we come.
The difference is that Steam provides a valuable service that is a fair balance for the DRM it requires - plus I don't tend to be off the internet anyway.
I lose more games by misplacing the disc than I lose from Steam's DRM issues (Misplaced: dozens over the years / Steam ate: 0)
Also, the valuable services steam provides require online authentication to work (even if not all the time) so the requirement is somewhat justified.
It would be nice if Steam's Offline mode would work better, for example not requiring you to be online to activate it - and not 'running out of time' on your Offline Mode after a bit.
The problems there are with Steam are few, but significant:
*No refund
*Valve can ban your whole account if they suspect piracy
*DVD copies of Steam games are effectively bulky CD-Keys to count for an online purchase.
Have you never given someone a ride in your car?
That seems like sharing to me.
But don't think of them too much, or too loudly.
What should we place there?
PAUSE?
for(i=100;i>0;i--)inhale(); ?
Because then people might ask, "Can I change my operating system on this PC?"
You appear to have forgotten that with the overpopulation problem, we could do with pruning a few belligerent douche bags who think they know better than their doctor.
Let *them* ignore doctor's advice without good reason, see if it kills *me*.
Kick unions out.
Yeah, all that "Fair wages" and "Safe workplace" stuff really screws up the economy.
Why don't they just get their ass back in the factories, and take that minimum wage up the ass.
I mean, how dare they affect the margins!
What assholes those unions are.
Gah, double post - but there were so many things wrong with your comment that I just had to reread it and groan in frustration again.
$5-10/month... you intend to subsist on a 10-30 user site?
We are entitled to an ad-free internet, or at least an annoying-ad-free, where we get to decide what's annoying.
And if every user of ... say /. donated only $1, maybe even only $0.1 or $0.01. The site would do just fine for a good long while.
So popular sites have no real problem, what about smaller sites...well they need less advertising, because their hosting costs are smaller, not to mention the possibility that they have a small user base because they're simply part of the dross of the internet.
People pay for good content all over the internet, via mechandise, donations and subscriptions.
If your websites can't survive without forcing your ads down our throat - we don't need you.
When advertising is considered by the users to be 'site functionality' is a sad sad day.
And now I'm going to have to try real hard not to visualise Anakin x Jar Jar x Random Asian Woman porn.
I hate you. And we know what Hate leads to.