It's pretty funny that you're criticizing the "government is the problem, not the solution" mantra by invoking DADT which is a problem caused by a standing government military, and 9/11 which was arguably a problem caused by US government meddling in the middle east. I daresay that government IS the problem, and that expecting them to also be the solution is extremely naive of you.
Regulation doesn't prevent those things any more than criminal law prevents murder. At best it can punish wrongdoers. At worst it creates market capture for existing players and eliminates competition.
I get a little tired of "liberals"* thinking that if some regulation is good, then more regulation is better, and regulating everything is the best. Try fixing existing regulation before blanketing more bad regulation on top.
Net neutrality is a bad solution and will simply make things worse. First, how about separating the ownership of the physical medium from the service provider? Too many liberals ask the wrong questions and come to the wrong conclusions.
* I put the term liberals in quotes because modern American liberals are anything but. Modern American liberals want nearly every aspect of human interaction regulated by the government.
Yes, my heart bleeds about the ethics of price matching at some store. I'm sure the store is 100% ethical in their dealings and would never take advantage of anybody.
I for one would love to see a ChromeOS tablet. I liked the direction that the Crunchpad was taking, too bad the project was a dismal failure. A cheap tablet which is nothing more than a web browser would be perfect for just leaving around the house for me, family, guests, etc to use.
The power of corporations over the government mattered little when the government had little power. Now that the government is responsible for spending roughly 25% of the US GDP, you damn well bet that multinational corporations have a huge interest in controlling it.
Big government will be run by big business. There is nothing that will change that.
You mean the public option that will likely be as well run as Medicare/Medicaid? Did you know that government currently spends half of all the money spent on healthcare in the US to cover a mere fraction of the populace? Can you imagine how expensive it would be for those nimrods in Washington to provide it for everyone?
You did have the advantage of always getting first pick of answer or not. If the computer was able to buzz in, it may very well buzz in before you and take those points. It's confidence rating was interesting to watch.
I beat the computer too, but what was most interesting were the results after I answered and seeing it's confidence levels for various answers. Often it did have the right answer, even sometimes when there was word play.
Actually I was doing this on the internet in the late 90s.
I was a developer at a company that wrote CD based legal research software, CDs which were updated monthly. When it obvious that internet (even though many people were still on dial-up) was the future of delivery, we added a feature to that software which used a combination of the CD and remote data and displayed the results intermingled. Search on the term "patent AND abuse" and it would search the local CD database while simultaneously sending a request to our web server for results. The results were all listed together and viewing the documents was seamless because it was all just basically just HTML with some proprietary tags for our uses. The files that came down from the server were, you guessed it, already marked up with HTML tags around the hits.
Sounds like the cat has a better understanding of three dimensional space. The dog just knows that the door is where he goes in and out and whines at that door. The cat is looking in different windows trying to find a person.
I love my dog, but I'm never going to pretend he's as smart as my cat.
Libertarians I know (myself included) are all for punishing companies which pollute. If the company can find a way to pollute only the air above their factory, fine with me. But the moment it wafts into my airspace, it affects me. That whole right to swing your fist ends at my nose thing? The right to pollute ends at the edge of your property. There are no logical inconsistencies there.
What is funny is that people who scream the loudest about how we need regulation lest the free market run amok fail to notice how the US government has done basically NOTHING to punish BP for their recent oil spill.
Apparently libertarians care more about dealing with externalities than do liberals or conservatives.
It does nothing of the sort. The free market is simply how good businesses succeed and bad businesses fail. More often than not, when a bad business succeeds, you'll find government help prop it up. Just look at the US. Regulation everywhere, and we still find ourselves beholden to terrible businesses. Why? Quite frequently because of government protection or outright subsidy.
So as long as a poor person made sure that they kept their net worth low or even negative by maintaining large credit card balances, they could speed every day with no fear of repercussion?
Slashdot Mirror
It's pretty funny that you're criticizing the "government is the problem, not the solution" mantra by invoking DADT which is a problem caused by a standing government military, and 9/11 which was arguably a problem caused by US government meddling in the middle east. I daresay that government IS the problem, and that expecting them to also be the solution is extremely naive of you.
In which case Net Neutrality is the wrong answer to the wrong question.
The problem is not that all packets should be treated equally, it's that physical lines should not be under the same ownership as content.
Leave it to government to layer bad laws on top of a bad system rather than simply fix the initial problem.
Government discriminates against certain traffic all the time. Or have you never heard of HOV lanes?
Regulation doesn't prevent those things any more than criminal law prevents murder. At best it can punish wrongdoers. At worst it creates market capture for existing players and eliminates competition.
I get a little tired of "liberals"* thinking that if some regulation is good, then more regulation is better, and regulating everything is the best. Try fixing existing regulation before blanketing more bad regulation on top.
Net neutrality is a bad solution and will simply make things worse. First, how about separating the ownership of the physical medium from the service provider? Too many liberals ask the wrong questions and come to the wrong conclusions.
* I put the term liberals in quotes because modern American liberals are anything but. Modern American liberals want nearly every aspect of human interaction regulated by the government.
Yes, my heart bleeds about the ethics of price matching at some store. I'm sure the store is 100% ethical in their dealings and would never take advantage of anybody.
I for one would love to see a ChromeOS tablet. I liked the direction that the Crunchpad was taking, too bad the project was a dismal failure. A cheap tablet which is nothing more than a web browser would be perfect for just leaving around the house for me, family, guests, etc to use.
The power of corporations over the government mattered little when the government had little power. Now that the government is responsible for spending roughly 25% of the US GDP, you damn well bet that multinational corporations have a huge interest in controlling it.
Big government will be run by big business. There is nothing that will change that.
You mean the public option that will likely be as well run as Medicare/Medicaid? Did you know that government currently spends half of all the money spent on healthcare in the US to cover a mere fraction of the populace? Can you imagine how expensive it would be for those nimrods in Washington to provide it for everyone?
You did have the advantage of always getting first pick of answer or not. If the computer was able to buzz in, it may very well buzz in before you and take those points. It's confidence rating was interesting to watch.
I beat the computer too, but what was most interesting were the results after I answered and seeing it's confidence levels for various answers. Often it did have the right answer, even sometimes when there was word play.
Actually I was doing this on the internet in the late 90s.
I was a developer at a company that wrote CD based legal research software, CDs which were updated monthly. When it obvious that internet (even though many people were still on dial-up) was the future of delivery, we added a feature to that software which used a combination of the CD and remote data and displayed the results intermingled. Search on the term "patent AND abuse" and it would search the local CD database while simultaneously sending a request to our web server for results. The results were all listed together and viewing the documents was seamless because it was all just basically just HTML with some proprietary tags for our uses. The files that came down from the server were, you guessed it, already marked up with HTML tags around the hits.
If that's the case then copyright owners need to start paying property taxes on their "intellectual property."
Great, just what we need. A single world government that is even more secretive and less accountable than the current ones.
Agree 100%
Errr, that should say "without the phone hardware."
I've wondered this myself. These tablets are just large smartphones with the phone hardware. How can it not be "designed for tablets"?
Sounds like the cat has a better understanding of three dimensional space. The dog just knows that the door is where he goes in and out and whines at that door. The cat is looking in different windows trying to find a person.
I love my dog, but I'm never going to pretend he's as smart as my cat.
Libertarians I know (myself included) are all for punishing companies which pollute. If the company can find a way to pollute only the air above their factory, fine with me. But the moment it wafts into my airspace, it affects me. That whole right to swing your fist ends at my nose thing? The right to pollute ends at the edge of your property. There are no logical inconsistencies there.
What is funny is that people who scream the loudest about how we need regulation lest the free market run amok fail to notice how the US government has done basically NOTHING to punish BP for their recent oil spill.
Apparently libertarians care more about dealing with externalities than do liberals or conservatives.
And then people wonder why we spend so much money on healthcare.
"I'm sorry sir, but you're affordable medical device simply won't do. Come back after you've spent another $100M, and we'll talk."
Which free market invaded Iraq?
It does nothing of the sort. The free market is simply how good businesses succeed and bad businesses fail. More often than not, when a bad business succeeds, you'll find government help prop it up. Just look at the US. Regulation everywhere, and we still find ourselves beholden to terrible businesses. Why? Quite frequently because of government protection or outright subsidy.
The bigger the better. Hitting politicians with hammers is one area where I'm as liberal as they come.
"Because the U.S. is not just 1 nation. It is 50 independently governed States, which share sovereignty with the Federal Government."
That's the theory anyway.
Guess who already pays for half of all US healthcare expenditures?
Government. And that only covers about 10% of the population.
So what you're saying is that our problem is that we don't let government cover 100% of the population?
I'm not seeing the logic.
So as long as a poor person made sure that they kept their net worth low or even negative by maintaining large credit card balances, they could speed every day with no fear of repercussion?