Climate science is the new 'snake oil', you can predict almost anything short term, get lots of funding, scare people and get more funding. How soon do we forget that 30 years ago scientists were predicting a second ice age.
Do we need to look into it? Yes. But really, 'climate scientists' end up willingly or unwillingly become shills of large corporations selling their goods.
With the lack of standards, ethics and real science, I can't help but not feel sorry for all these 'climate scientists' who now have their future called in question.
Ok, put a Chinese iPhone and a genuine iPhone side by side and ask people which one they would prefer. Most people would choose the genuine iPhone because they got things right that the fake iPhones can't emulate.
About the only thing they can compete with is price and not much else. In the end it doesn't matter that the iPhone has all the patents or not it is the implementation that really counts.
Quite honestly, it is time to eliminate patents. As we've seen from countries with lax IP enforcement (AKA China), if you have a quality product, the knock-offs can't compete. The entire point of patents is to add to public knowledge, but that isn't happening. So really, we need shorter patent protection times, or just eliminate it all together.
They provide a free service that you must opt-in to participate.
Right. You know how when the 'new' Facebook had 'better privacy features' that it wanted you to add in everything visible to everyone more or less by default?
If you don't like their terms of service and privacy policy then you should delete your account and stop using it.
Which accomplishes what exactly? You can't use Facebook and Facebook still has your info. You do realize that when you disable your account -everything- is still in the system right?
Not really. The main privacy problems aren't what they do but rather that they do it without notifying users and thus not obtaining their consent.
Imagine if I signed a contract that stated I would pay $500 in rent every month. Seven months later I get a letter saying that I owed back rent despite paying my $500 every month. Would it really hold up in court that the landlords had a 'right' to change the contract without notifying their tenants? But that is exactly what Facebook is doing. It is nothing more than online bait-and-switch only worse because generally with bait and switch you know that a change is taking place before you fork over the cash.
Honestly, FB should just give us decent privacy controls because the majority of their users won't bother. So its a win-win. FB gets to use whatever they want and the small number of us who want better privacy controls are pleased.
Then what you want isn't a netbook. You want an ultra-portable-PC, which have existed for a while and will keep continuing to exist.
What I want (and the masses want) is cheap, reasonably powerful laptops. Quite honestly I want something $200 that can browse the full web, have a reasonably decent keyboard, etc. I want components that are enough to multi-task, play music, movies, etc. and also to play some games. Not the newest releases, but be able to play most games reasonably.
The only thing that still drives processors are transcoding and games really
And OSes, and browsers, and movie playback, etc. br>
Give it another year or two and I'm sure I won't even look at the spec for what processor is in a machine I buy: of course it will be fine.
But fine for what? Yeah, if all you want to do is browse the web a bit and do e-mail, perhaps that Celeron will do, but in 3 years?
The Core i7 you buy today is more or less "future-proof", it will have enough processing power so you won't need to buy a new machine when you need a better CPU for basic use. Remember when 3.2 Ghz of P4 power seemed to be more than enough? Now that is considered to be very low-end.
Well of course you haven't bought a desktop in a few years because there is no need to -buy- a desktop every time you want to upgrade it. Even for the non-geek changing RAM, installing a new HDD, adding in a new graphics card, replacing an old networking card, etc. are all very easy to do. With a laptop you have to wonder if it -really- is worth it. Most desktops allow adding in more RAM than is practical for average use, while most laptops are maxed-out when they come from the factory. If a screen breaks on a desktop you either drag out that $7 CRT you picked up a few years back at a garage sale or buy a ~$200 or less monitor, or, if you have a good graphics card, just use your HDTV. If your power supply dies on a laptop and the laptop is out of warranty, the laptop is dead. If your power supply dies on your desktop you just throw in a new one.
Upgrading a desktop majorly involves buying some parts and sticking it in the case. Upgrading a laptop majorly usually involves buying a new laptop.
Do you enjoy your automobile being entirely your own,
No, and I don't like my computer being entirely on my own.
I do like though that I can change my car how I like it. If I want to I can change the seats, put in a different stereo system, put in a faster engine, put on snow tires, put a lift kit on it, etc. Essentially I can make my car how I want it or need it to be. With the iPad it is akin to getting a station wagon with everything welded shut, any 'upgrades' requiring special (expensive) service, and no way to do basic maintenance without calling a mechanic.
Essentially that is what an iPad or any other Apple product is (unless you modify it). A station wagon with everything welded shut. Will it be useful for some people? Sure. But perhaps I don't like the sound system, prefer to replace some parts myself to save money, adjust the steering wheel and seat to fit my choosing, etc.
I -enjoy- having control over my devices even if I don't generally deal with them. I generally don't change brake pads myself, but I like the fact they are standardized so there is competition for others in both brake pads and installation.
What an open system (like Android, Linux, heck, even Windows and to some degree OS X) basically is, is a car that you can customize. Few things are 'welded shut' you are free to put in a new engine, free to put in a new interior, sound system, AC system, exhaust, etc. Its pre-built and will work when you first start it up, but when something goes wrong you can fix it for cheap or if you don't like it you can swap out components.
The freedom to tinker comes with a compulsion to tinker, and unless you're an enthusiast already or your time has no value that's a negative.
Generally tinkering can -save- time. For example, it takes me 15 minutes to create some keybindings for some of my applications. I'm sure over a year's worth of use I've saved far more time than those 15 minutes it took me to create the keybindings in the first place. Not only that but I can make things that are completely my own, and that quite honestly gives me more value to them than the default. I don't -want- my computer/devices to look like others, act like others or really be any other device other than my own.
At the moment. But will Apple really be able to carry the momentum once people start realizing theres nothing really -great- about the iPad?
The reason why the iPod got marketshare so quickly was because it was the smallest media player for the space at the time and had a decent UI. The reason why the iPhone got marketshare because at the time it was the only way you could browse the web decently from a phone.
But, I don't know if I'm simply blind to some hidden factor but I don't see the appeal of the iPad. I don't mind Apple products (I'm listening to an iPod touch on my desk at the moment) but I just feel like you are paying more to get less. For $500 I can get an iPad which will only run a very limited set of applications, eventually will have simi-multitasking, won't ever get you the full web, costs an arm and a leg to use common peripherals, etc. Or I could get a $500 laptop with a dual-core x86 CPU, run just about every OS under the sun, full multitasking, cheap 'apps', full peripheral support, replaceable battery, etc.
I use my netbook or laptop while sitting on the sofa all the time, if I want to really "consume media" I fire up my HTPC and put on a movie. If I want to play a game I fire up my 360 or modified Wii.
Some specialty devices I can understand, like e-ink e-readers because they have features (e-paper that is easy on the eyes) that other systems lack. With the iPad, what benefit are you getting for the cost?
Plus, the time wasn't right. The entire Microsoft line of failed products happened not always because Microsoft's version was worse, but because it came across as Microsoft copying the industry leader. Lets see here:
The Zune looked like a copy of the iPod. The Zune HD looked like a copy of the iPod Touch. Bing/Live Search all seemed to be copies of Google. Etc.
Microsoft's products that have been successful have been those ahead of their competitors. Look at the 360 which got a few months head start on Nintendo/Sony and has been very successful (of course a lot of this could be due to the lack of decent games for the Wii and the astronomical price of PS3 hardware for the longest time...).
Releasing Courier would seem like a copy of the iPad, something that Microsoft can't pump money into because it will be dead on release.
Lets face it, 'tablets' are dead. You are essentially paying more for less. While there will always be a small niche market for tablets, there aren't any benefits for the general consumer when compared to a laptop, -especially- when they are running dumbed-down OSes.
Neither the iPad nor Courier have (or would have in the case of MS's canceled project) any real advantages when it comes to getting work done than a regular Netbook or Laptop. I can see the point of a low-priced tablet device, essentially a large, sturdy smartphone for a -low- price. But when it comes down to it, its quite stupid to pay more and get less of a product and that is what tablets currently are.
...Because we all know that Microsoft Office runs natively on Linux now? They aren't really in the same category because of this. Its a bit like saying that Ocarina of Time was the best adventure game while discussing PS1 adventure titles. Yes, it may be but if you have a PS1 the fact that a Nintendo 64 game is better is of little consequence.
Plus, OOo is pretty compatible with most formats. Yeah, its not as 'polished' as MS Office but it sure beats running it in WINE or a VM for most tasks.
The main thing that changed is now manufacturers are trying to get Linux drivers out to the masses. I remember back when I first started using Linux (Fedora Core 4 then later Puppy Linux on an old PIII) and having trouble getting basic things like PCI wireless cards to work. The days of Ndiswrapper and painfully extraction various.exes found on questionable Russian driver sites to try to get Linux to work with them are long gone. And quite honestly, I found installing Windows 7 on a spare partition to be a lot harder than installing the latest Ubuntu release because Ubuntu detected all my hardware whereas I was searching for drivers on almost every piece of hardware for Windows.
Not sure if it was released at the time of writing because the article said
This article is the third of five (or so) in Tom's Definitive Linux Software Roundup, and my production machine has undergone a few upgrades since the series began. The new hardware configuration is in the table below. However, the software has changed as well. I started out with Ubuntu 9.04, but switched to Kubuntu 9.10 over the holidays. Therefore, some of the versions may have been from Jaunty and not the newer Karmic repos. Also, some screenshots are GNOME and others KDE.
Its quite possible he did all the testing in Jan/Feb and just now got it published or finished writing it.
But I agree, the article is complete crap. In other words Open Office is the best full office suite there is on Linux, same as it has been for 5 or more years is all that the article says.
So in other words OOo is still the best office suite available for Linux like it has been since... oh 2004? And there are some niche programs that can help with specific jobs like GnuCash?
I really don't get how this is a story for the/. crowd. Perhaps it might be interesting on Engadget or Gizmodo, but for the readers of/. , we already know 99.9% of what is in the article.
I'm going to go ahead and point out the flaw here. In most conversations, net neutrality specifically means blocking certain sites is bad. So your slippery slope is pretty poor, imo.
But its the government. They can/will break net neutrality to get their way. Neither republicans nor democrats are parties of principle, they are parties who change their politics to fit whoever gives them the most money. Someone donates $5 million and owns a 'green' company, that party is going to want tax breaks and government contracts for that company. Someone gives campaign funds and is a record executive? We get things like the DMCA.
history has shown that regulation can help and that without that regulation things can go poorly
As for the Glass-Stegal Act, if we had less regulation, less government pressure to give loans to 'minorities' for homes (who can't pay for them) and if we had a policy of not bailing out companies, I'd imagine we wouldn't have the banking collapse. A -lot- of it was from when Clinton wanted -everyone- to own a home, even if they couldn't pay for it. So banks would not only give out loans for the home but let them take out more than they could pay back. When the people defaulted on their loans the banks acted surprised. Regulation breeds monopolies and big businesses that are 'too big to fail'. Lack of regulation leads to smaller companies who don't do things correctly failing early and harming fewer people.
Show me a single instance of government regulation of the internet -ever- increasing freedom and having a truly positive end.
And, so? They should be able to do that when they aren't using public funds/land. If they do that, I don't buy internet access from them and tell others not to. Generally it is when they use public lands is when they are granted monopolies and screw their customers because they have no other place to turn to. If they continue to screw customers, they lose money and go out of business. The majority of ISPs who screw their customers end up getting monopolies because they use public land.
Giving governments power of the internet has -never- turned out well for the countries who have it. Or perhaps you want internet like Australia where citizen journalism is prohibited (they removed a video of Neda Agha-Soltan being shot and dying during Iran protests), satire is prohibited (they blocked a page of Encyclopedia Dramatica), and blocking video games which are 'objectionable'.
While this might stop Comcast, regulation is -never- the answer when it comes to the economy. If you can mandate net neutrality over all the net* who is to say that the government can't force ISPs to block certain sites? Track 'piracy', etc.
*I believe that the way to regulate ISPs is that if the ISP has lines running through public property, the public has a say on their policies. If they don't use public land, they are free to do whatever.
Regulation usually cuts off one head of the hydra only to replace it with 2, 3 or 4 more problems. Mix this with the fact you can't vote these people out of office and they are accountable to essentially no one and you have a system ripe for abuse.
Let the citizens choose what their public land is used for. If an ISP wants to use that land to lay cable, they should be accountable to the citizens because their land is being used.
You can find child abuse -everywhere- that you have people in charge of children. There have been child abuse in public schools, yet that hardly justifies condemning education.
There are a -lot- of things you can condemn the Catholic church about, namely the power abuse historically, the sale of indulgences and the failure to adapt to the 21st century. The entire format of the Catholic church is born out of an illiterate population filled with 'visions'. But the entire church failed to change for an enlightened, reasoned population.
But honestly, using child abuse to justify your argument against the Catholic church is simply sensationalized. Had it been anything other than a church it would already be forgotten.
I don't understand why you disagree with it. Would you expect Microsoft Press to publish a book declaring the virtues of OS X and the outdated legacy of Windows NT? Why would you expect the Vatican to publish a book contrary to their doctrine? The Vatican opposed publication by the other publishers but really couldn't do anything about it. And really, can you blame them for not publishing it? They placed it on a list of 'forbidden' books but it lacked enforcement. If you wanted to read it, you easily could. It was banned in the 1950s, not the 1750s. So really, whats next? Expecting the Pope to put The Book of Mormon on his homepage?
Slashdot Mirror
Climate science is the new 'snake oil', you can predict almost anything short term, get lots of funding, scare people and get more funding. How soon do we forget that 30 years ago scientists were predicting a second ice age.
Do we need to look into it? Yes. But really, 'climate scientists' end up willingly or unwillingly become shills of large corporations selling their goods.
With the lack of standards, ethics and real science, I can't help but not feel sorry for all these 'climate scientists' who now have their future called in question.
Ok, put a Chinese iPhone and a genuine iPhone side by side and ask people which one they would prefer. Most people would choose the genuine iPhone because they got things right that the fake iPhones can't emulate.
About the only thing they can compete with is price and not much else. In the end it doesn't matter that the iPhone has all the patents or not it is the implementation that really counts.
Quite honestly, it is time to eliminate patents. As we've seen from countries with lax IP enforcement (AKA China), if you have a quality product, the knock-offs can't compete. The entire point of patents is to add to public knowledge, but that isn't happening. So really, we need shorter patent protection times, or just eliminate it all together.
They provide a free service that you must opt-in to participate.
Right. You know how when the 'new' Facebook had 'better privacy features' that it wanted you to add in everything visible to everyone more or less by default?
If you don't like their terms of service and privacy policy then you should delete your account and stop using it.
Which accomplishes what exactly? You can't use Facebook and Facebook still has your info. You do realize that when you disable your account -everything- is still in the system right?
...You mean like how right by every single post in the news feed there is a button where you can hide posts from certain people, groups, etc?
Not really. The main privacy problems aren't what they do but rather that they do it without notifying users and thus not obtaining their consent.
Imagine if I signed a contract that stated I would pay $500 in rent every month. Seven months later I get a letter saying that I owed back rent despite paying my $500 every month. Would it really hold up in court that the landlords had a 'right' to change the contract without notifying their tenants? But that is exactly what Facebook is doing. It is nothing more than online bait-and-switch only worse because generally with bait and switch you know that a change is taking place before you fork over the cash.
Honestly, FB should just give us decent privacy controls because the majority of their users won't bother. So its a win-win. FB gets to use whatever they want and the small number of us who want better privacy controls are pleased.
Then what you want isn't a netbook. You want an ultra-portable-PC, which have existed for a while and will keep continuing to exist.
What I want (and the masses want) is cheap, reasonably powerful laptops. Quite honestly I want something $200 that can browse the full web, have a reasonably decent keyboard, etc. I want components that are enough to multi-task, play music, movies, etc. and also to play some games. Not the newest releases, but be able to play most games reasonably.
The only thing that still drives processors are transcoding and games really
And OSes, and browsers, and movie playback, etc.
br>
Give it another year or two and I'm sure I won't even look at the spec for what processor is in a machine I buy: of course it will be fine.
But fine for what? Yeah, if all you want to do is browse the web a bit and do e-mail, perhaps that Celeron will do, but in 3 years?
The Core i7 you buy today is more or less "future-proof", it will have enough processing power so you won't need to buy a new machine when you need a better CPU for basic use. Remember when 3.2 Ghz of P4 power seemed to be more than enough? Now that is considered to be very low-end.
Well of course you haven't bought a desktop in a few years because there is no need to -buy- a desktop every time you want to upgrade it. Even for the non-geek changing RAM, installing a new HDD, adding in a new graphics card, replacing an old networking card, etc. are all very easy to do. With a laptop you have to wonder if it -really- is worth it. Most desktops allow adding in more RAM than is practical for average use, while most laptops are maxed-out when they come from the factory. If a screen breaks on a desktop you either drag out that $7 CRT you picked up a few years back at a garage sale or buy a ~$200 or less monitor, or, if you have a good graphics card, just use your HDTV. If your power supply dies on a laptop and the laptop is out of warranty, the laptop is dead. If your power supply dies on your desktop you just throw in a new one.
Upgrading a desktop majorly involves buying some parts and sticking it in the case. Upgrading a laptop majorly usually involves buying a new laptop.
Do you enjoy your automobile being entirely your own,
No, and I don't like my computer being entirely on my own.
I do like though that I can change my car how I like it. If I want to I can change the seats, put in a different stereo system, put in a faster engine, put on snow tires, put a lift kit on it, etc. Essentially I can make my car how I want it or need it to be. With the iPad it is akin to getting a station wagon with everything welded shut, any 'upgrades' requiring special (expensive) service, and no way to do basic maintenance without calling a mechanic.
Essentially that is what an iPad or any other Apple product is (unless you modify it). A station wagon with everything welded shut. Will it be useful for some people? Sure. But perhaps I don't like the sound system, prefer to replace some parts myself to save money, adjust the steering wheel and seat to fit my choosing, etc.
I -enjoy- having control over my devices even if I don't generally deal with them. I generally don't change brake pads myself, but I like the fact they are standardized so there is competition for others in both brake pads and installation.
What an open system (like Android, Linux, heck, even Windows and to some degree OS X) basically is, is a car that you can customize. Few things are 'welded shut' you are free to put in a new engine, free to put in a new interior, sound system, AC system, exhaust, etc. Its pre-built and will work when you first start it up, but when something goes wrong you can fix it for cheap or if you don't like it you can swap out components.
The freedom to tinker comes with a compulsion to tinker, and unless you're an enthusiast already or your time has no value that's a negative.
Generally tinkering can -save- time. For example, it takes me 15 minutes to create some keybindings for some of my applications. I'm sure over a year's worth of use I've saved far more time than those 15 minutes it took me to create the keybindings in the first place. Not only that but I can make things that are completely my own, and that quite honestly gives me more value to them than the default. I don't -want- my computer/devices to look like others, act like others or really be any other device other than my own.
Er, the ipad is selling hugely
At the moment. But will Apple really be able to carry the momentum once people start realizing theres nothing really -great- about the iPad?
The reason why the iPod got marketshare so quickly was because it was the smallest media player for the space at the time and had a decent UI. The reason why the iPhone got marketshare because at the time it was the only way you could browse the web decently from a phone.
But, I don't know if I'm simply blind to some hidden factor but I don't see the appeal of the iPad. I don't mind Apple products (I'm listening to an iPod touch on my desk at the moment) but I just feel like you are paying more to get less. For $500 I can get an iPad which will only run a very limited set of applications, eventually will have simi-multitasking, won't ever get you the full web, costs an arm and a leg to use common peripherals, etc. Or I could get a $500 laptop with a dual-core x86 CPU, run just about every OS under the sun, full multitasking, cheap 'apps', full peripheral support, replaceable battery, etc.
I use my netbook or laptop while sitting on the sofa all the time, if I want to really "consume media" I fire up my HTPC and put on a movie. If I want to play a game I fire up my 360 or modified Wii.
Some specialty devices I can understand, like e-ink e-readers because they have features (e-paper that is easy on the eyes) that other systems lack. With the iPad, what benefit are you getting for the cost?
Plus, the time wasn't right. The entire Microsoft line of failed products happened not always because Microsoft's version was worse, but because it came across as Microsoft copying the industry leader. Lets see here:
The Zune looked like a copy of the iPod. The Zune HD looked like a copy of the iPod Touch. Bing/Live Search all seemed to be copies of Google. Etc.
Microsoft's products that have been successful have been those ahead of their competitors. Look at the 360 which got a few months head start on Nintendo/Sony and has been very successful (of course a lot of this could be due to the lack of decent games for the Wii and the astronomical price of PS3 hardware for the longest time...).
Releasing Courier would seem like a copy of the iPad, something that Microsoft can't pump money into because it will be dead on release.
Lets face it, 'tablets' are dead. You are essentially paying more for less. While there will always be a small niche market for tablets, there aren't any benefits for the general consumer when compared to a laptop, -especially- when they are running dumbed-down OSes.
Neither the iPad nor Courier have (or would have in the case of MS's canceled project) any real advantages when it comes to getting work done than a regular Netbook or Laptop. I can see the point of a low-priced tablet device, essentially a large, sturdy smartphone for a -low- price. But when it comes down to it, its quite stupid to pay more and get less of a product and that is what tablets currently are.
...Because we all know that Microsoft Office runs natively on Linux now? They aren't really in the same category because of this. Its a bit like saying that Ocarina of Time was the best adventure game while discussing PS1 adventure titles. Yes, it may be but if you have a PS1 the fact that a Nintendo 64 game is better is of little consequence.
Plus, OOo is pretty compatible with most formats. Yeah, its not as 'polished' as MS Office but it sure beats running it in WINE or a VM for most tasks.
The main thing that changed is now manufacturers are trying to get Linux drivers out to the masses. I remember back when I first started using Linux (Fedora Core 4 then later Puppy Linux on an old PIII) and having trouble getting basic things like PCI wireless cards to work. The days of Ndiswrapper and painfully extraction various .exes found on questionable Russian driver sites to try to get Linux to work with them are long gone. And quite honestly, I found installing Windows 7 on a spare partition to be a lot harder than installing the latest Ubuntu release because Ubuntu detected all my hardware whereas I was searching for drivers on almost every piece of hardware for Windows.
This article is the third of five (or so) in Tom's Definitive Linux Software Roundup, and my production machine has undergone a few upgrades since the series began. The new hardware configuration is in the table below. However, the software has changed as well. I started out with Ubuntu 9.04, but switched to Kubuntu 9.10 over the holidays. Therefore, some of the versions may have been from Jaunty and not the newer Karmic repos. Also, some screenshots are GNOME and others KDE.
Its quite possible he did all the testing in Jan/Feb and just now got it published or finished writing it.
But I agree, the article is complete crap. In other words Open Office is the best full office suite there is on Linux, same as it has been for 5 or more years is all that the article says.
So in other words OOo is still the best office suite available for Linux like it has been since... oh 2004? And there are some niche programs that can help with specific jobs like GnuCash?
/. crowd. Perhaps it might be interesting on Engadget or Gizmodo, but for the readers of /. , we already know 99.9% of what is in the article.
I really don't get how this is a story for the
I'm going to go ahead and point out the flaw here. In most conversations, net neutrality specifically means blocking certain sites is bad. So your slippery slope is pretty poor, imo.
But its the government. They can/will break net neutrality to get their way. Neither republicans nor democrats are parties of principle, they are parties who change their politics to fit whoever gives them the most money. Someone donates $5 million and owns a 'green' company, that party is going to want tax breaks and government contracts for that company. Someone gives campaign funds and is a record executive? We get things like the DMCA.
history has shown that regulation can help and that without that regulation things can go poorly
Really, then how do you explain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_australia ?
As for the Glass-Stegal Act, if we had less regulation, less government pressure to give loans to 'minorities' for homes (who can't pay for them) and if we had a policy of not bailing out companies, I'd imagine we wouldn't have the banking collapse. A -lot- of it was from when Clinton wanted -everyone- to own a home, even if they couldn't pay for it. So banks would not only give out loans for the home but let them take out more than they could pay back. When the people defaulted on their loans the banks acted surprised. Regulation breeds monopolies and big businesses that are 'too big to fail'. Lack of regulation leads to smaller companies who don't do things correctly failing early and harming fewer people.
Show me a single instance of government regulation of the internet -ever- increasing freedom and having a truly positive end.
And, so? They should be able to do that when they aren't using public funds/land. If they do that, I don't buy internet access from them and tell others not to. Generally it is when they use public lands is when they are granted monopolies and screw their customers because they have no other place to turn to. If they continue to screw customers, they lose money and go out of business. The majority of ISPs who screw their customers end up getting monopolies because they use public land.
Giving governments power of the internet has -never- turned out well for the countries who have it. Or perhaps you want internet like Australia where citizen journalism is prohibited (they removed a video of Neda Agha-Soltan being shot and dying during Iran protests), satire is prohibited (they blocked a page of Encyclopedia Dramatica), and blocking video games which are 'objectionable'.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Australia and think if you -really- want to give the government power over the internet.
While this might stop Comcast, regulation is -never- the answer when it comes to the economy. If you can mandate net neutrality over all the net* who is to say that the government can't force ISPs to block certain sites? Track 'piracy', etc.
*I believe that the way to regulate ISPs is that if the ISP has lines running through public property, the public has a say on their policies. If they don't use public land, they are free to do whatever.
Regulation usually cuts off one head of the hydra only to replace it with 2, 3 or 4 more problems. Mix this with the fact you can't vote these people out of office and they are accountable to essentially no one and you have a system ripe for abuse.
Let the citizens choose what their public land is used for. If an ISP wants to use that land to lay cable, they should be accountable to the citizens because their land is being used.
You can find child abuse -everywhere- that you have people in charge of children. There have been child abuse in public schools, yet that hardly justifies condemning education.
There are a -lot- of things you can condemn the Catholic church about, namely the power abuse historically, the sale of indulgences and the failure to adapt to the 21st century. The entire format of the Catholic church is born out of an illiterate population filled with 'visions'. But the entire church failed to change for an enlightened, reasoned population.
But honestly, using child abuse to justify your argument against the Catholic church is simply sensationalized. Had it been anything other than a church it would already be forgotten.
I don't understand why you disagree with it. Would you expect Microsoft Press to publish a book declaring the virtues of OS X and the outdated legacy of Windows NT? Why would you expect the Vatican to publish a book contrary to their doctrine? The Vatican opposed publication by the other publishers but really couldn't do anything about it. And really, can you blame them for not publishing it? They placed it on a list of 'forbidden' books but it lacked enforcement. If you wanted to read it, you easily could. It was banned in the 1950s, not the 1750s. So really, whats next? Expecting the Pope to put The Book of Mormon on his homepage?