You could easily make the argument that net neutrality is neccessary for protecting the privacy of users or that anti-net neutral policies are anti-competitive and thus fall under existing anti-trust legislation. There are corps on both sides of the fence; their stance on the issue is interesting but not in of itself a reason to support net neutrality.
How does what you said serve any realistic proof to the topic WE are talking about here?
And, fyi, any reasonable person would not base their decision making as 'anything that is opposite of corporations' plans'... that's silly to even suggest.
Anti trust is hard to prove and expensive to pursue. It is a last resort in handling a market that is poorly managed. Regulating is easy and efficient.
We spent 30 years fighting commercial pollution using the court system and we got nowhere. As soon as set up regulations that fined the hell out of violators, we began to see progress. Cabinets get to implement administrative law that is enforceable with fines, otherwise the only recourse is a long drawn out court case.
Those jerks in the supreme court should be workin on this crap!
Thanks for the info; I was unaware at how ineffective our justice system is in regard to anti-trust. Still, I hold it to be neglected for political purposes.
If that's true, then why do we need the same flu vaccine each year? Why do elderly people already seem to have a good immunity towards the newest swine flu strain?
Normally I agree that vaccines are a good idea... but something seems exteremly fishy about the flu vaccine in particular.
I'll first let you know that I have much education in cellular/molecular biology; I am qualified to explain this rather elementary biological concept.
I will try to keep this simple: When foreign proteins are introduced into your system, your body attaches to some of them and, in a way, identifies a specific part of the protein. Your immune system then develops antibodies that are VERY specific to attach to that very specific protein. This is important because your whole body contains TONS of various proteins, some of which are even from other organisms, such as the bacteria in your gut that help you digest (your 'symbiotic' relationship with them is a GOOD thing, you don't want them killed).
So, one thing to know, is that genetic mutations, especially in viruses, happen quite commonly. Mutations lead to variations in proteins, and thus even though a protein may be 95% the way it was when your body made an antibody, it is NOT the same, and the body must develop NEW antibodies.
Once the antibody and immune response is ready, the body cannot (generally) be reinfected by the same virus. It is because of mutation and recombination (say, a human flu virus with a pig flu virus thanks to close proximity of humans/pigs and similar genetics), that viruses change enough to still infect you.
A vaccine is usually just some parts of a viral protein, or a deactivated virus (which has proteins). Or some system that presents/produces proteins, from the virus you want to be immune to, to your immune system. But since they are inactivated, your body develops an immune response that protects you from infection but without the virus actually being capable of infection.
So, the reason you need a vaccine each year is the same reason you would get the flu each year (whether or not you get bad symptoms or not). The virus has mutated or recombined with similar other viruses and now your antibodies and immune system don't work on this one until it develops antibodies, etc.
Let me know if this is clear enough. I can reword or dig up some literature for you if necessary.
Max Baucus is going to hold a private hearing to hear all the options available. The list of 3 trusted industry professionals is limited to representatives from: Comcast, SBC, and AT&T. They *are*, as we know, the most successful in the industry, of course only they should be trusted!
Sorry... I'm still P.O'd that 60-70% of Americans consistently poll to want Single Payer, yet it will not even be discussed or considered, thanks to political corruption.
Then let the "development" of the Internet it be "hindered". If IPTV takes another decade because new business models have be created to adapt to a neutral network, then so be it. I am happy to wait. If the capacity available to me grows more slowly because there are fewer deal making opportunities for ISPs and content producers then so be it. I've got enough bandwidth. Corrupting the relatively simple model of the existing network by letting Disney et al. carve it up into lucrative morsels to be passes among the elite is not appealing. Whichever content providers don't like it can just keep their stuff on cable until we drop our cable service as we've dropped our landlines. Their stuff just isn't that important to me.
The capitalist claims the market is agile. Adaptation is supposed to be swift. I believe this. I therefore believe we should permit the market to prove this by preventing the aforementioned companies from molding the Internet into models they are already comfortable with. Let them adapt to a neutral network. The Internet isn't broken and doesn't need to be fixed by Time Warner. The Internet will not fail if Ted Turner doesn't get a cut of my ISP's revenue.
There you go; an argument for Net Neutrality from the conservative perspective.
I don't see how anti-trust laws aren't enough, already, to protect us from most of this. Apparently, anti-trust laws are only enforced as convenient... fackin politics keeping democracy and justice muted.
Not everything that corporations are against is good for the public.
Be realistic; just because something is not absolute does not mean it isn't generally true. What was said was by no means at all a statement of ignorance or hasty generalization.
On the level of cellular/molecular adaptation and reaction, the vaccine suffices to serve the same as a full infection; the difference being the degree to which you're encumbered by the immune response.
I know! All this 'black pride' and prevalence of organizaions that specifically serve to benefit those of specific races (like the NAACP) are maintaining racial preference (racism) like crazy!
The day we stop acknowledging race and sex is the day we will find equality. Feminism is sexism that favors women; and so it is sexism just like chauvenism is and does NOTHING to promote equality.
How can you be a feminist that is against sexism? That doesn't make any sense. Sexism is an ideology that favors one sex in over another. Feminism is an ideology that places a specific sex (female) over another; it is a word for a specific mode of sexism.
This whole topic is ridiculous. I'm reminded of the racism that some people call 'reverse racsim' (lol, as if it is any different) where blacks label themselves (or cars, etc) "Black Pride", latinos "Latin Pride" and natives "Native/Indian Pride". It is silly to think that a minority, subject to racial oppression from a majority, would serve to promote equality by embracing racism. All this really does is give oppressive racist majorities more reason to maintain racist beliefs.
If we stop acknowledging irrational differences of sex and race, we may *actually* begin to achieve equality. I find it funny that my race and sex actually matter when applying for schools and jobs in a country that is supposed to embrace equality. What does inequal treatment based on race do to achieve equality? Nothing; it takes us away from equality.
The main point is that this quote from the article referenced by Slashdot, "Commercial biofuel from algae still 7 to 10 years off", is a lie. It cannot be predicted when a scientific breakthrough will occur, if ever.
Lol... its not in the future, the breakthroughs are already here. it is the delivery and funding of the infrastructure that only need to be rolled out.
If you don't know this already, you're not looking. JC Venter's SGI is rolling out plants that will be producing for us NEXT YEAR at the cost of $50/barrel.
so this is like fusion but only 10 years away instead of 20 !
This article strives to exaggerate the 'time to completion' of the general concept. I say this because the 2-10 years estimate is only a matter of business, not of known working methods to deliver fuel at $50/barrel. Only a couple months ago JC Venter's SGI along with Exxon discussed their engineered algae that secretes the biofuels (thus making harvesting very simple and efficient), and that they would be rolling out their first plant in the bay area to start pumping fuel in 2010 with plans to expand by 2011.
The limits are really whether we will be realistic enough to make these things a SOON reality by making a large social effort to roll out the major infrastructure; or if we will keep subsidizing dino-oil and coal companies because our puppets don't know what a spine is.
Hell, we could have robots that sort and process all of what we call 'trash' given the state of technology today. We don't... apparently we need more bombs and we need to pay international banks interest to print our money...
It took me 4 years to realize how good I had it back then
How long will it take you to realize that correlation is not causation? Perhaps until the next time you get a spate of sickness? That flu shot only helps you not get the flu, and while your body is coping with it your immune system is depressed. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that you're seeing the world through rose-colored petri dishes.
yeah, ok... Thanks for trying to insult me. I must be an idiot for knowing that the slight immune reaction from flu shots was NOTHING like the natural flus I had the last 4 years.
Thanks for being a douche, I love it when you attack me and pretend I'm stupid.
They shouldn't be working there, that's what that means. And what happens is that they are fired and replaced by a more fitting individual that is appropriate for the conditions of the job.
You can't sue because you willingly and *KNOWINGLY* take the shot with all the precautions and potentials available to you.
It's a good idea to know wtf you're doing before you do it, to include getting a shot. Not knowing is your own damn fault. It's a part of being an adult called RESPONSIBILITY. It used to be all the rage, but as of late it seems BLAME is the new way...
Just so you know, and not really related to 'swine flu'.
I recently noticed how much more encumbered my years are now that I don't get regular flu shots. As a part of my work in the past, I got flu shots yearly and seemingly never got the flu. I never noticed how 'good' I had it until the last 4 years where I've been a student and haven't gotten the shot.... And so now I spend at least one, if not 2, weeks out of the year suffering.
It took me 4 years to realize how good I had it back then and to take note that I might benefit happily and greatly from a $16 flu shot.
Oh wait... he owns multiple news/tv channels... and most radio stations... many record labels....
I guess the internet is the only place he doesn't have extensive control over... yet.
I'm just curious in a country that (pretends to, when convenient) fosters competition and is supposed to fight monopoly/oligopoly, how we permit one man to control so much media.
Dude, I responded the same way and went so far as to write gearbox. Randy wrote me back, personally, and cleared it up. This article is sensationalist exaggeration and bullshit, thats what it is. I knew my critic-o-meter was off today! I should have known a journalist will say crazy junk just to seem cool.
Here is the link to my post (right here in slashdot comments) where I quote him from his e-mail to me.
NO NO NO! MOD THAT DOWN! THAT WAS AN IGNORANT RESPONSE TO A SENSATIONALIST ARTICLE!
I immediately went to gearbox's website and wrote with specific directions to deliver my message to Richard Pitchford. I wrote about, well, basically what I wrote in that first post here... I told him I would not be buying borderlands despite how much I have been waiting for it. Within a short time he actually personally wrote me back and made clear to me that what we are reading here on slashdot is an exaggeration. The writer is using sensationalism to get people to care about his article, that is all.
I will exclude the more personal discussion we had in e-mail and include only the part that he referenced from a forum he posted on to clarify things. I am doing this because I know it is on a forum and I didn't ask him permission to post his other stuff. -------
As a gamer, I *love* Valve's games. Hell, I've *made* some of Valve's games!
As a customer, I love Steam. I like owning a credential that I can use from any terminal and I like the software. There are other things I like, too.
As a businessman, I appreciate the access to Valve's customers that they are providing with Steam. I think there's value to that access. I'm really happy that the Brothers in Arms games are available on Steam and I think Steam customers are really going to dig Borderlands. I have been and hope to be a partner to Valve for many years.
From an industry perspective of digital distribution on the PC, I think Steam is doing it the best right now. They're in front and they're really getting value out of their leadership position with digital distribution on the PC.
From an industry perspective, I believe that Steam would be even better off if it were a separate company. Trust issues that result from conflict of interest could be mitigated if Steam were a separate company. Take that only as analysis. It doesn't matter how much I trust Valve or how trustworthy Valve actually is - it's just perception within segments of the publishing and development community that, I guess, no one is really talking about. I'm on record in this article saying how I personally trust Valve. I was attempting to comment on perception from some angles of the industry.
I also believe that gamers and customers and anyone making games using 3rd party digital distribution systems would be greatly benefited if Steam had some viable competitors. Competition generally drives higher quality products and services at lower prices. I can't see how anyone could argue against that point. If we love Steam, we should hope that as competition appears that it prompts the Steam folks to go faster and better towards improving the service and the pricing.
In spite of the implication made in this blurb, I do not want Microsoft to control digital distribution on PC, but believe they (and others) could enter the space if they wanted to and help the competitive landscape and even, perhaps, help to standardize the landscape a bit. I believe that because Valve is a game maker that generally "gets it" I think there's a lot of value to the position they have and I'm really excited about the risk they took and the foresight Valve showed in paving the way there.
These are not mutually exclusive feelings and they are all honest and forthright.
Networks start to clog up and Americans will start being fed b.s. about 'needs' to manage network traffic despite the horrible scope of network bandwidth/proliferation in the US relative to other industrialized nations, namely Korea/Japan.
ISP's stated they could double bandwidths at the cost of $6/home, but that option is easily avoided at the benefit of saving $6/home and blaming straw men.
Eolas is not the bad guy here, they're just doing what is legally possible. You can't condemn a company for following the law, just because it seems wrong.
The problem obviously is the patent law. I have no idea if the US is willing to change that, but if they do, it will be the end of shit like Eolas is pulling right now as well.
(/sarcasm on) Right, because law = morality. it's ok to be immoral so long as the law permits it, right? (/sarcasm off)
People can do many wrong things to you, legally. If you can't imagine them (which seems to be the source of your ignorant support for what you've said), maybe they ought occur.
Please use your brain; think about things a little more, that's all. I'm sure if you tried you could imagine how ridiculous it is to think that all things legal are OK.
Slashdot Mirror
You could easily make the argument that net neutrality is neccessary for protecting the privacy of users or that anti-net neutral policies are anti-competitive and thus fall under existing anti-trust legislation. There are corps on both sides of the fence; their stance on the issue is interesting but not in of itself a reason to support net neutrality.
How does what you said serve any realistic proof to the topic WE are talking about here?
And, fyi, any reasonable person would not base their decision making as 'anything that is opposite of corporations' plans'... that's silly to even suggest.
Be realistic, please.
Anti trust is hard to prove and expensive to pursue. It is a last resort in handling a market that is poorly managed. Regulating is easy and efficient.
We spent 30 years fighting commercial pollution using the court system and we got nowhere. As soon as set up regulations that fined the hell out of violators, we began to see progress. Cabinets get to implement administrative law that is enforceable with fines, otherwise the only recourse is a long drawn out court case.
Those jerks in the supreme court should be workin on this crap!
Thanks for the info; I was unaware at how ineffective our justice system is in regard to anti-trust. Still, I hold it to be neglected for political purposes.
If that's true, then why do we need the same flu vaccine each year? Why do elderly people already seem to have a good immunity towards the newest swine flu strain?
Normally I agree that vaccines are a good idea... but something seems exteremly fishy about the flu vaccine in particular.
I'll first let you know that I have much education in cellular/molecular biology; I am qualified to explain this rather elementary biological concept.
I will try to keep this simple:
When foreign proteins are introduced into your system, your body attaches to some of them and, in a way, identifies a specific part of the protein. Your immune system then develops antibodies that are VERY specific to attach to that very specific protein. This is important because your whole body contains TONS of various proteins, some of which are even from other organisms, such as the bacteria in your gut that help you digest (your 'symbiotic' relationship with them is a GOOD thing, you don't want them killed).
So, one thing to know, is that genetic mutations, especially in viruses, happen quite commonly. Mutations lead to variations in proteins, and thus even though a protein may be 95% the way it was when your body made an antibody, it is NOT the same, and the body must develop NEW antibodies.
Once the antibody and immune response is ready, the body cannot (generally) be reinfected by the same virus. It is because of mutation and recombination (say, a human flu virus with a pig flu virus thanks to close proximity of humans/pigs and similar genetics), that viruses change enough to still infect you.
A vaccine is usually just some parts of a viral protein, or a deactivated virus (which has proteins). Or some system that presents/produces proteins, from the virus you want to be immune to, to your immune system. But since they are inactivated, your body develops an immune response that protects you from infection but without the virus actually being capable of infection.
So, the reason you need a vaccine each year is the same reason you would get the flu each year (whether or not you get bad symptoms or not). The virus has mutated or recombined with similar other viruses and now your antibodies and immune system don't work on this one until it develops antibodies, etc.
Let me know if this is clear enough. I can reword or dig up some literature for you if necessary.
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1036_3-6075472.html
But he isn't a trusted expert on anything, right?
Max Baucus is going to hold a private hearing to hear all the options available. The list of 3 trusted industry professionals is limited to representatives from: Comcast, SBC, and AT&T. They *are*, as we know, the most successful in the industry, of course only they should be trusted!
Sorry... I'm still P.O'd that 60-70% of Americans consistently poll to want Single Payer, yet it will not even be discussed or considered, thanks to political corruption.
Then let the "development" of the Internet it be "hindered". If IPTV takes another decade because new business models have be created to adapt to a neutral network, then so be it. I am happy to wait. If the capacity available to me grows more slowly because there are fewer deal making opportunities for ISPs and content producers then so be it. I've got enough bandwidth. Corrupting the relatively simple model of the existing network by letting Disney et al. carve it up into lucrative morsels to be passes among the elite is not appealing. Whichever content providers don't like it can just keep their stuff on cable until we drop our cable service as we've dropped our landlines. Their stuff just isn't that important to me.
The capitalist claims the market is agile. Adaptation is supposed to be swift. I believe this. I therefore believe we should permit the market to prove this by preventing the aforementioned companies from molding the Internet into models they are already comfortable with. Let them adapt to a neutral network. The Internet isn't broken and doesn't need to be fixed by Time Warner. The Internet will not fail if Ted Turner doesn't get a cut of my ISP's revenue.
There you go; an argument for Net Neutrality from the conservative perspective.
I don't see how anti-trust laws aren't enough, already, to protect us from most of this. Apparently, anti-trust laws are only enforced as convenient... fackin politics keeping democracy and justice muted.
Not everything that corporations are against is good for the public.
Be realistic; just because something is not absolute does not mean it isn't generally true. What was said was by no means at all a statement of ignorance or hasty generalization.
On the level of cellular/molecular adaptation and reaction, the vaccine suffices to serve the same as a full infection; the difference being the degree to which you're encumbered by the immune response.
... and I'm prone to alzheimers!
I know! All this 'black pride' and prevalence of organizaions that specifically serve to benefit those of specific races (like the NAACP) are maintaining racial preference (racism) like crazy!
The day we stop acknowledging race and sex is the day we will find equality. Feminism is sexism that favors women; and so it is sexism just like chauvenism is and does NOTHING to promote equality.
How can you be a feminist that is against sexism? That doesn't make any sense. Sexism is an ideology that favors one sex in over another. Feminism is an ideology that places a specific sex (female) over another; it is a word for a specific mode of sexism.
This whole topic is ridiculous. I'm reminded of the racism that some people call 'reverse racsim' (lol, as if it is any different) where blacks label themselves (or cars, etc) "Black Pride", latinos "Latin Pride" and natives "Native/Indian Pride". It is silly to think that a minority, subject to racial oppression from a majority, would serve to promote equality by embracing racism. All this really does is give oppressive racist majorities more reason to maintain racist beliefs.
If we stop acknowledging irrational differences of sex and race, we may *actually* begin to achieve equality. I find it funny that my race and sex actually matter when applying for schools and jobs in a country that is supposed to embrace equality. What does inequal treatment based on race do to achieve equality? Nothing; it takes us away from equality.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/07/potential-microbial-and-algae-biofuel.html
The main point is that this quote from the article referenced by Slashdot, "Commercial biofuel from algae still 7 to 10 years off", is a lie. It cannot be predicted when a scientific breakthrough will occur, if ever.
From the University of Texas: Algae as tools in studying the biosynthesis of cellulose, nature's most abundant macromolecule.
Lol... its not in the future, the breakthroughs are already here. it is the delivery and funding of the infrastructure that only need to be rolled out.
If you don't know this already, you're not looking. JC Venter's SGI is rolling out plants that will be producing for us NEXT YEAR at the cost of $50/barrel.
Welcome to the truth.
so this is like fusion but only 10 years away instead of 20 !
This article strives to exaggerate the 'time to completion' of the general concept. I say this because the 2-10 years estimate is only a matter of business, not of known working methods to deliver fuel at $50/barrel. Only a couple months ago JC Venter's SGI along with Exxon discussed their engineered algae that secretes the biofuels (thus making harvesting very simple and efficient), and that they would be rolling out their first plant in the bay area to start pumping fuel in 2010 with plans to expand by 2011.
The limits are really whether we will be realistic enough to make these things a SOON reality by making a large social effort to roll out the major infrastructure; or if we will keep subsidizing dino-oil and coal companies because our puppets don't know what a spine is.
Hell, we could have robots that sort and process all of what we call 'trash' given the state of technology today. We don't... apparently we need more bombs and we need to pay international banks interest to print our money...
It took me 4 years to realize how good I had it back then
How long will it take you to realize that correlation is not causation? Perhaps until the next time you get a spate of sickness? That flu shot only helps you not get the flu, and while your body is coping with it your immune system is depressed. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that you're seeing the world through rose-colored petri dishes.
yeah, ok... Thanks for trying to insult me. I must be an idiot for knowing that the slight immune reaction from flu shots was NOTHING like the natural flus I had the last 4 years.
Thanks for being a douche, I love it when you attack me and pretend I'm stupid.
They shouldn't be working there, that's what that means. And what happens is that they are fired and replaced by a more fitting individual that is appropriate for the conditions of the job.
You can't sue because you willingly and *KNOWINGLY* take the shot with all the precautions and potentials available to you.
It's a good idea to know wtf you're doing before you do it, to include getting a shot. Not knowing is your own damn fault. It's a part of being an adult called RESPONSIBILITY. It used to be all the rage, but as of late it seems BLAME is the new way...
Just so you know, and not really related to 'swine flu'.
I recently noticed how much more encumbered my years are now that I don't get regular flu shots. As a part of my work in the past, I got flu shots yearly and seemingly never got the flu. I never noticed how 'good' I had it until the last 4 years where I've been a student and haven't gotten the shot.... And so now I spend at least one, if not 2, weeks out of the year suffering.
It took me 4 years to realize how good I had it back then and to take note that I might benefit happily and greatly from a $16 flu shot.
Is there any way we can not hear his garbage?
Oh wait... he owns multiple news/tv channels... and most radio stations... many record labels....
I guess the internet is the only place he doesn't have extensive control over... yet.
I'm just curious in a country that (pretends to, when convenient) fosters competition and is supposed to fight monopoly/oligopoly, how we permit one man to control so much media.
Want to play Kumbaya? There's an app for that!
Die, troll. Wtf are you worth? Jokes and potshots?
Jock mentality is childish and common; grow up.
Dude, I responded the same way and went so far as to write gearbox. Randy wrote me back, personally, and cleared it up. This article is sensationalist exaggeration and bullshit, thats what it is. I knew my critic-o-meter was off today! I should have known a journalist will say crazy junk just to seem cool.
Here is the link to my post (right here in slashdot comments) where I quote him from his e-mail to me.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1399359&cid=29700749
NO NO NO! MOD THAT DOWN! THAT WAS AN IGNORANT RESPONSE TO A SENSATIONALIST ARTICLE!
I immediately went to gearbox's website and wrote with specific directions to deliver my message to Richard Pitchford. I wrote about, well, basically what I wrote in that first post here... I told him I would not be buying borderlands despite how much I have been waiting for it. Within a short time he actually personally wrote me back and made clear to me that what we are reading here on slashdot is an exaggeration. The writer is using sensationalism to get people to care about his article, that is all.
I will exclude the more personal discussion we had in e-mail and include only the part that he referenced from a forum he posted on to clarify things. I am doing this because I know it is on a forum and I didn't ask him permission to post his other stuff.
-------
As a gamer, I *love* Valve's games. Hell, I've *made* some of Valve's games!
As a customer, I love Steam. I like owning a credential that I can use from any terminal and I like the software. There are other things I like, too.
As a businessman, I appreciate the access to Valve's customers that they are providing with Steam. I think there's value to that access. I'm really happy that the Brothers in Arms games are available on Steam and I think Steam customers are really going to dig Borderlands. I have been and hope to be a partner to Valve for many years.
From an industry perspective of digital distribution on the PC, I think Steam is doing it the best right now. They're in front and they're really getting value out of their leadership position with digital distribution on the PC.
From an industry perspective, I believe that Steam would be even better off if it were a separate company. Trust issues that result from conflict of interest could be mitigated if Steam were a separate company. Take that only as analysis. It doesn't matter how much I trust Valve or how trustworthy Valve actually is - it's just perception within segments of the publishing and development community that, I guess, no one is really talking about. I'm on record in this article saying how I personally trust Valve. I was attempting to comment on perception from some angles of the industry.
I also believe that gamers and customers and anyone making games using 3rd party digital distribution systems would be greatly benefited if Steam had some viable competitors. Competition generally drives higher quality products and services at lower prices. I can't see how anyone could argue against that point. If we love Steam, we should hope that as competition appears that it prompts the Steam folks to go faster and better towards improving the service and the pricing.
In spite of the implication made in this blurb, I do not want Microsoft to control digital distribution on PC, but believe they (and others) could enter the space if they wanted to and help the competitive landscape and even, perhaps, help to standardize the landscape a bit. I believe that because Valve is a game maker that generally "gets it" I think there's a lot of value to the position they have and I'm really excited about the risk they took and the foresight Valve showed in paving the way there.
These are not mutually exclusive feelings and they are all honest and forthright.
-------
And quit crying about how Valve did something so great...
Guess what, you can do it too!
But, oh, right... this is America. We now foster the 'lets blame the winners' attitude, to include predatory lawyers that perpetuate it.
Yeah, its Valve's fault. :rolleyes:
Grow up.
and the system has exploits (like everything does)... then exploits happen for money.
we need a new approach to human interaction, culture, and purpose.
Money really *is* the root of most/all evils in this world, yet everything is based around it. And we wonder why nothing changes...
Networks start to clog up and Americans will start being fed b.s. about 'needs' to manage network traffic despite the horrible scope of network bandwidth/proliferation in the US relative to other industrialized nations, namely Korea/Japan.
ISP's stated they could double bandwidths at the cost of $6/home, but that option is easily avoided at the benefit of saving $6/home and blaming straw men.
Eolas is not the bad guy here, they're just doing what is legally possible. You can't condemn a company for following the law, just because it seems wrong.
The problem obviously is the patent law. I have no idea if the US is willing to change that, but if they do, it will be the end of shit like Eolas is pulling right now as well.
(/sarcasm on)
Right, because law = morality. it's ok to be immoral so long as the law permits it, right?
(/sarcasm off)
People can do many wrong things to you, legally. If you can't imagine them (which seems to be the source of your ignorant support for what you've said), maybe they ought occur.
Please use your brain; think about things a little more, that's all. I'm sure if you tried you could imagine how ridiculous it is to think that all things legal are OK.