Basically, you are saying the government should have the right to prevent groups from being able to make their own rules and set their own standards for how they are run.
"Free speech" isn't being able to say whatever you want without any form of repercussions; it's simply the government not jailing or preventing you. Getting fired or losing your girlfriend over what you say or think is just a fact of life, and you trying to change that requires an even greater degree of control over what they exert on you.
I like you how suddenly make the switch from "employment" to "fear between citizens and government".
You can be fired for no reason at all and have no recourse? Well, duh, you can quit hiring your maid for no reason at all, too; should she be able to take you to court over you firing her? Some people will fire you over terrible reasons--maybe they are racist, maybe they just don't like you. That's life, and expecting, and wanting, to be coddled just gives someone or something else more power over you because they're the one who puts the foot down.
If you want control, the person you have to depend on, protect, and think for needs to be yourself primarily.
Mod this up. Someone gets it and doesn't have the "equality" meme stuck in their head, outraged over "packet racism" and "packet segregation"; slashdot is full of net neutrality Jesse Jacksons.
If an ISP offered a service where, say, VoIP packets were delivered with priority, or certain websites, like youtube, were given priority and faster access, you'd complain, because even though they are getting faster-than-normal access, relatively it's still all the same--some sites faster than others.
If you don't like that, fine, vote with your wallet; I don't mind a little bit of throttling if it's getting me better service in things I want, and I'll vote with my wallet accordingly.
Maybe "healthcare for everyone" is a "responsibility of civilization", however, "civilization" is not government, and forcing people to buy into it is just controlling people for your own beliefs.
Furthermore, your class warfare nonsense is rather amusing. I bet those CEOs sit in their board rooms talking about "holding down the proletariat".
Pure capitalism is not inherently immoral; it does not "coerce", per se; it simply allows individuals to make decisions.
The worst parts of pure capitalism are simply that it may cause large monopolies, which doesn't so much hurt people as it may simply slow down a field by inflating prices or causing products and services to be less than what they would have been in a competitive arena. Such monopolies can be toppled though as others may seek higher quality products/services at a premium from a smaller business.
Communism, on the other hand, forces the hand of individuals in the name of society or "the people", which is "everyone who isn't you"--being a slave to the masses is not my idea of freedom, although to some people, it is.
The whole "corporate science" rubbish... well, it has some truth to it, but the truth is a universal one--people everywhere lie for personal gain, corporations and individuals alike, whether for fame or profit.
The finger-pointing to corporations is a political one. There's a political agenda here, one that is frighteningly enough taking hold of the entire world.
The world is heading towards a collectivist mindset, and the idea of profit is increasingly being viewed as an evil, and of course individualism is also being seen as a "bad thing", some even going so far as to speak of "atomized individualism" and so on.
People like to blame corruption in business as something unique to capitalism, but let's look at the corruption in charities, government, education, as well--and we see that humanity is the common denominator, and that idea of all things is what they reject and fear.
Our government has been doing this regarding global warming and similar, by the way. Whenever there's something to gain, there will be people lying to get ahead.
And there will always be some motivation, some reason to get ahead. But individual freedom is increasingly being trampled "for the greater good" and to try to fix problems that unfortunately are not rooted in the nature of man's institutions but in man himself (or herself).
It's a good thing Britain has so many cameras around; perhaps then they will be able to catch the criminals talking with passengers. Unfortunately they won't be able to catch the maniacs listening to the radio, though.
I'll make sure never to talk to someone in the car or listen to the radio then, either, because that would interfere with my driving, too.
OK, so you have some patriotism towards Britain or something, I dunno. That doesn't mean you have to be utterly ridiculous over it. Tell me, do you ever talk to someone in the car, listen to your radio, perhaps adjust the air conditioning...?
Maybe the Brits are terrified of the idea of talking while driving, but I suppose not many of us outside Britain find it particularly strange.
Benchmarks are objective. A card will perform one way on a game given everything being equal on the set up (and ignoring possible variations between cards and other hardware) regardless of what or who runs the test.
The end conclusions, however, are what is subjective--that X is a better buy, or so forth, are what is subjective, although statements like "Card A performed significantly faster in all tests" are objectively true statements.
Not to mention the peripherals themselves cost some money, too, and if a computer breaks, you usually just need to replace a component, and not send the whole thing back.
The truth is, people are 1) afraid and 2) want what they want on their terms. People want control. They want control. That's simply how it is; people want to control the ISPs to do what they want them to do. They want to hold more bargaining chips than the company does itself.
They usually ignore the false advertising issue because it's not really what they want. They want things to go Their Way.
Completely free unregulated markets only work when there are low barriers to entry, many suppliers, no external costs or benefits, perfect customer insight into the market, completely homogeneous and equivalent services being offered, zero cost of switching supplier, and no barriers to trade. The number of markets in which that applies can be counted on fewer hands than most people have.
This only holds true if your initial assumption is that business should benefit the customer more than the actual businesses themselves.
And what does it say, if customers are willing to pay for such an internet? Maybe you aren't, but Joe Schmoe could probably care less; why is what you want more important than what Joe Schmoe wants...?
I actually agree with you, but when you start saying the government should control the market in instances like these you're really saying the government should force ISPs to behave in the way you want them to behave without having to shop around or make informed decisions like everyone else. Fair is what the customer agrees to, not what you personally feel is right. The problem isn't net neutrality, it's that ISPs can get away with misleading advertising.
Yes, you can you say they are government-supported monopolies, but that's another problem... Other than that problem, however, you in fact do NOT own the ISPs and they can, or at least should, be able to do what they want on their ends of the network.
Your argument is as cliche as it is not clever. Love is an emotion, art is a creative endeavor, and beauty is typically something that stirs a sort of emotional reaction.
Yes, it is hard to define many things especially since you cannot really describe one emotion or sensation in terms of another emotion or sensation. A lot of philosophy is trying to pin down a good definition--and a lot of philosophy is also carefully defining what you mean so it is understand what exactly you are arguing for. Saying you believe in "God" tells me almost nothing because I don't know what "God" is supposed to be. When someone says "love", "beauty", or "art", however, I do have an idea of what they are talking about.
Notice that "love", "beauty", and "art" are heavily subjective things, while "god" is not--god is supposed to be some sort of objective entity. Thus "god" needs to be defined so a discussion can be had on it. Maybe someone has an "internal" god of sorts but that's not what we're talking about and you'd be guilty of equivocation if you tried to bring such meanings into the discussion.
No. To have done the kind of work that earns a Nobel takes a lot of time and effort over many years. That kind of time spend on the science is incompatible with spending time with a family, because there's only 24 hours in the day for everyone.
And what does that have to do with religion? You snuck that little jab in there for a reason, why not follow through with it? Not only are you probably wrong (a lot of work over the years doesn't mean Nobel prize winning scientists don't spend time with their families...) but your little tangent on Nobel prize winning scientists not "having time" for... god and family is out of place and I wonder what your agenda really is.
You are clearly being not only argumentative, but dismissive (fantasy, magic, ghosts & goblins, and other unsubstantiated nonsense). Did I accidentally hit a sore spot of yours? Because for all that you (well, really the slashdot crowd in general) want to claim that you're rational, you don't argue very rationally sometimes about religion.
No, I'm very rational towards religion. I know you probably have ants in your pants being told your belief in a god is no more justified or special than a belief in unicorns or magical powers, but that's the way it goes when you believe in unsubstantiated things that have as much evidence going for them as fantasy creations.
Actually, we're not. I was specifically implying the religious folk who don't understand evolution. I do understand it, and I accept it as the best scientific explanation for the diversity of life that we see. If the state of Texas wants to try to "teach the controversy" or whatever mumbo-jumbo phrase the creationists are using lately, and someone else doesn't get to it first, my wife will sue their ass to keep it off the curriculum.
Good, but that doesn't change the fact that you also rely on non-scientific explanations and statements about the world, being god and, judging by what you say later, miracles and probably a host of other stuff. If you want to live in reality it's best for all of us that you keep your head there.
Ah, *probably* isn't there! You at least admit it's a possibility? That's some real progress!
OF COURSE it's possible. You think you win points for believing in something that's possible? Your lack of knowledge of philosophy shines here, because probably anything can be possible as human understanding is not and cannot be 100%.
This is exactly why god is in the same realm as big foot, unicorns, magic, the ether, the river Styx, and so on. These are all possible, sure you have to bend our current understanding of the world by adding in new statements and new assumptions to make them true (and thus new questions are raised, but strangely proponents of bullshit never seem intent on answering them honestly) but that doesn't stop people from thinking that because it's possible, it justifies belief in such a thing. Far from that fact.
I can't prove God exists to you or even to myself. You can't prove she doesn't. It's not really the same, but IIRC it's pretty unlikely we'll ever know what was on the far side of the Big Bang, either. That doesn't mean physicists haven't advanced hypotheses, and I'll wager some of them even *believe* that one or another of these hypotheses must be the right one... even without proof.
I never said "prove", it's a highly misleading word especially among the layman who has no understanding of reason and epistemology and thinks things can be "proven 100%" etc etc.
Regardless of what proof means, evidence is what is important. We have evidence that we are a single planet in the solar system orbiting a star with many other stars out there. Explanations that stars are holes in the sky don't fly anymore and for good reason. Is it possible, through some convoluted explanation, that they are merely holes in the firmament...? Of course. Anyone who thinks that is full of nonsense, however.
Slashdot Mirror
Basically, you are saying the government should have the right to prevent groups from being able to make their own rules and set their own standards for how they are run.
"Free speech" isn't being able to say whatever you want without any form of repercussions; it's simply the government not jailing or preventing you. Getting fired or losing your girlfriend over what you say or think is just a fact of life, and you trying to change that requires an even greater degree of control over what they exert on you.
I like you how suddenly make the switch from "employment" to "fear between citizens and government".
You can be fired for no reason at all and have no recourse? Well, duh, you can quit hiring your maid for no reason at all, too; should she be able to take you to court over you firing her? Some people will fire you over terrible reasons--maybe they are racist, maybe they just don't like you. That's life, and expecting, and wanting, to be coddled just gives someone or something else more power over you because they're the one who puts the foot down.
If you want control, the person you have to depend on, protect, and think for needs to be yourself primarily.
Mod this up. Someone gets it and doesn't have the "equality" meme stuck in their head, outraged over "packet racism" and "packet segregation"; slashdot is full of net neutrality Jesse Jacksons.
That's not speculation at all..!
If an ISP offered a service where, say, VoIP packets were delivered with priority, or certain websites, like youtube, were given priority and faster access, you'd complain, because even though they are getting faster-than-normal access, relatively it's still all the same--some sites faster than others.
If you don't like that, fine, vote with your wallet; I don't mind a little bit of throttling if it's getting me better service in things I want, and I'll vote with my wallet accordingly.
Does the World Trade Federation really irk people that much...?
Maybe "healthcare for everyone" is a "responsibility of civilization", however, "civilization" is not government, and forcing people to buy into it is just controlling people for your own beliefs.
Furthermore, your class warfare nonsense is rather amusing. I bet those CEOs sit in their board rooms talking about "holding down the proletariat".
Pure capitalism is not inherently immoral; it does not "coerce", per se; it simply allows individuals to make decisions.
The worst parts of pure capitalism are simply that it may cause large monopolies, which doesn't so much hurt people as it may simply slow down a field by inflating prices or causing products and services to be less than what they would have been in a competitive arena. Such monopolies can be toppled though as others may seek higher quality products/services at a premium from a smaller business.
Communism, on the other hand, forces the hand of individuals in the name of society or "the people", which is "everyone who isn't you"--being a slave to the masses is not my idea of freedom, although to some people, it is.
The whole "corporate science" rubbish... well, it has some truth to it, but the truth is a universal one--people everywhere lie for personal gain, corporations and individuals alike, whether for fame or profit.
The finger-pointing to corporations is a political one. There's a political agenda here, one that is frighteningly enough taking hold of the entire world.
The world is heading towards a collectivist mindset, and the idea of profit is increasingly being viewed as an evil, and of course individualism is also being seen as a "bad thing", some even going so far as to speak of "atomized individualism" and so on.
People like to blame corruption in business as something unique to capitalism, but let's look at the corruption in charities, government, education, as well--and we see that humanity is the common denominator, and that idea of all things is what they reject and fear.
Our government has been doing this regarding global warming and similar, by the way. Whenever there's something to gain, there will be people lying to get ahead.
And there will always be some motivation, some reason to get ahead. But individual freedom is increasingly being trampled "for the greater good" and to try to fix problems that unfortunately are not rooted in the nature of man's institutions but in man himself (or herself).
So outlaw talking with passengers, outlaw the radio, and so on.
It's a good thing Britain has so many cameras around; perhaps then they will be able to catch the criminals talking with passengers. Unfortunately they won't be able to catch the maniacs listening to the radio, though.
Better pass a law against talking passengers then.
We should all just pass a law against passengers distracting the driver, then; smiles will be had by all.
I'll make sure never to talk to someone in the car or listen to the radio then, either, because that would interfere with my driving, too.
OK, so you have some patriotism towards Britain or something, I dunno. That doesn't mean you have to be utterly ridiculous over it. Tell me, do you ever talk to someone in the car, listen to your radio, perhaps adjust the air conditioning...?
Maybe the Brits are terrified of the idea of talking while driving, but I suppose not many of us outside Britain find it particularly strange.
Let me clarify: being part of a DDoS attack.
What if it is sending out DDoS attacks or SPAM?
A lazy Mexican.
Benchmarks are objective. A card will perform one way on a game given everything being equal on the set up (and ignoring possible variations between cards and other hardware) regardless of what or who runs the test.
The end conclusions, however, are what is subjective--that X is a better buy, or so forth, are what is subjective, although statements like "Card A performed significantly faster in all tests" are objectively true statements.
Not to mention the peripherals themselves cost some money, too, and if a computer breaks, you usually just need to replace a component, and not send the whole thing back.
What's most important and moral, above all else, is that the greatest number of people benefit the most, right?
The truth is, people are 1) afraid and 2) want what they want on their terms. People want control. They want control. That's simply how it is; people want to control the ISPs to do what they want them to do. They want to hold more bargaining chips than the company does itself.
They usually ignore the false advertising issue because it's not really what they want. They want things to go Their Way.
Completely free unregulated markets only work when there are low barriers to entry, many suppliers, no external costs or benefits, perfect customer insight into the market, completely homogeneous and equivalent services being offered, zero cost of switching supplier, and no barriers to trade. The number of markets in which that applies can be counted on fewer hands than most people have.
This only holds true if your initial assumption is that business should benefit the customer more than the actual businesses themselves.
And what does it say, if customers are willing to pay for such an internet? Maybe you aren't, but Joe Schmoe could probably care less; why is what you want more important than what Joe Schmoe wants...?
I actually agree with you, but when you start saying the government should control the market in instances like these you're really saying the government should force ISPs to behave in the way you want them to behave without having to shop around or make informed decisions like everyone else. Fair is what the customer agrees to, not what you personally feel is right. The problem isn't net neutrality, it's that ISPs can get away with misleading advertising.
Yes, you can you say they are government-supported monopolies, but that's another problem... Other than that problem, however, you in fact do NOT own the ISPs and they can, or at least should, be able to do what they want on their ends of the network.
What if the speed limit was 5mph on a deserted freeway? Would it be immoral to speed then?
Forget it. They know what we are saying. They're purposefully being dishonest, trying to dodge our arguments so they don't have to face the facts.
Your argument is as cliche as it is not clever. Love is an emotion, art is a creative endeavor, and beauty is typically something that stirs a sort of emotional reaction.
Yes, it is hard to define many things especially since you cannot really describe one emotion or sensation in terms of another emotion or sensation. A lot of philosophy is trying to pin down a good definition--and a lot of philosophy is also carefully defining what you mean so it is understand what exactly you are arguing for. Saying you believe in "God" tells me almost nothing because I don't know what "God" is supposed to be. When someone says "love", "beauty", or "art", however, I do have an idea of what they are talking about.
Notice that "love", "beauty", and "art" are heavily subjective things, while "god" is not--god is supposed to be some sort of objective entity. Thus "god" needs to be defined so a discussion can be had on it. Maybe someone has an "internal" god of sorts but that's not what we're talking about and you'd be guilty of equivocation if you tried to bring such meanings into the discussion.
No. To have done the kind of work that earns a Nobel takes a lot of time and effort over many years. That kind of time spend on the science is incompatible with spending time with a family, because there's only 24 hours in the day for everyone.
And what does that have to do with religion? You snuck that little jab in there for a reason, why not follow through with it? Not only are you probably wrong (a lot of work over the years doesn't mean Nobel prize winning scientists don't spend time with their families...) but your little tangent on Nobel prize winning scientists not "having time" for... god and family is out of place and I wonder what your agenda really is.
You are clearly being not only argumentative, but dismissive (fantasy, magic, ghosts & goblins, and other unsubstantiated nonsense). Did I accidentally hit a sore spot of yours? Because for all that you (well, really the slashdot crowd in general) want to claim that you're rational, you don't argue very rationally sometimes about religion.
No, I'm very rational towards religion. I know you probably have ants in your pants being told your belief in a god is no more justified or special than a belief in unicorns or magical powers, but that's the way it goes when you believe in unsubstantiated things that have as much evidence going for them as fantasy creations.
Actually, we're not. I was specifically implying the religious folk who don't understand evolution. I do understand it, and I accept it as the best scientific explanation for the diversity of life that we see. If the state of Texas wants to try to "teach the controversy" or whatever mumbo-jumbo phrase the creationists are using lately, and someone else doesn't get to it first, my wife will sue their ass to keep it off the curriculum.
Good, but that doesn't change the fact that you also rely on non-scientific explanations and statements about the world, being god and, judging by what you say later, miracles and probably a host of other stuff. If you want to live in reality it's best for all of us that you keep your head there.
Ah, *probably* isn't there! You at least admit it's a possibility? That's some real progress!
OF COURSE it's possible. You think you win points for believing in something that's possible? Your lack of knowledge of philosophy shines here, because probably anything can be possible as human understanding is not and cannot be 100%.
This is exactly why god is in the same realm as big foot, unicorns, magic, the ether, the river Styx, and so on. These are all possible, sure you have to bend our current understanding of the world by adding in new statements and new assumptions to make them true (and thus new questions are raised, but strangely proponents of bullshit never seem intent on answering them honestly) but that doesn't stop people from thinking that because it's possible, it justifies belief in such a thing. Far from that fact.
I can't prove God exists to you or even to myself. You can't prove she doesn't. It's not really the same, but IIRC it's pretty unlikely we'll ever know what was on the far side of the Big Bang, either. That doesn't mean physicists haven't advanced hypotheses, and I'll wager some of them even *believe* that one or another of these hypotheses must be the right one... even without proof.
I never said "prove", it's a highly misleading word especially among the layman who has no understanding of reason and epistemology and thinks things can be "proven 100%" etc etc.
Regardless of what proof means, evidence is what is important. We have evidence that we are a single planet in the solar system orbiting a star with many other stars out there. Explanations that stars are holes in the sky don't fly anymore and for good reason. Is it possible, through some convoluted explanation, that they are merely holes in the firmament...? Of course. Anyone who thinks that is full of nonsense, however.
Scientists who believe without stro