Citizens: Well, internet is better and now I have more choices.
Politicians: Death panels! Terroist fistbumps! Benghazi!
Obama: Internet access is the right of every American. If you don't buy an approved Internet Access Plan from the state exchange, say hello to my little frenz at the IRS.
Unfortunately, we have to let bureaucrats and the President make laws or nothing will be done.
Sounds like we should have elected someone like Hugo Chavez, a politician always issuing executive fiats "for the people." It worked for Venezuela, right?
It is easier to reclassify the broadband companies than to get them to play nice with the Internet. If there is REAL competition, they will get in line, because some new start-up can quickly state they have 'true' Net Neutrality.
Ironically you may have have hit on the real reason for passing Net Neutrality. The feelgood parts of the regulation touted on/. will be toothless. Meanwhile the fine print of the regulation will outlaw new start-ups and anything else approaching "REAL competition."
It might be better that way. I know I can't out-bid $MEGACORP on the Congressperson-purchasing market, err I mean campaign contribution donations. Unlike letting Congress handle this, there's actually a chance some random bureaucrat will do the right thing. A slim chance, yes, but a chance.
This/. story about a "vote" tries to make this agreement among bureaucrats look like something other than an executive fiat from a single Hugo Chavez. The idea is to convince you the representative democratic process is involved somehow. But rather than pick up on that, you seem to think it's more expensive to buy off half of a handful of regulators than to buy off most of Congress.
The only big problem with the FCC scenario is the standard revolving door between the regulators and future cushy jobs in the very industry they're supposed to be regulating.
So it's better to have bureaucrats handling everything, except for the fact that bureaucrats regularly come from and return to the industries they regulate and can be bought off rather easily. Nice bit of reasoning there.
It's interesting how this top-down regulatory move without the input of America's elected lawmakers is being characterized as the true Will Of The People. There's serious Newspeak going on here.
The other side of that argument is that science is telling folks that no, you can't use more than we've got forever, and yes, what you do is impacting other people. And some folks want any excuse to say, "So what. I only live once, screw the next generation, I want it all. Now!"
Math is telling the government that no, you can't spend more money than you've got forever, and yes, what it does is impacting other people. Some folks want any excuse to say, "So what. The government needs to 'help' everyone. Screw the next generation! The government needs more and more and more..."
A quick google search reveals the average manufacturing job in China pays $134 per month. It has little to do with laziness or stupid jobs, its simple economics.
The economics of the situation extends far beyond wages. Taxes, energy, distribution, and construction costs name a few. But perhaps the greatest cost to manufacture in America is the opportunity-lost-cost. If environmental regulations mean you have to wait months or even years to build a factory in America when you can break ground in China tomorrow, the decision on where manufacturing jobs go has already been made.
When the FCC redefined its own role by implementing the so-called Net Neutality rules, it did an end run around America's official representatives in Congress. As the OP noted, the courts have already ruled against a Federal bureaucracy assuming powers it can only be granted by the legislature. This veto, if there is one, can only be framed as Obama & the bureaucratic machine against the courts, the legislature, and the rule of law.
When the FCC redefined its own role by implementing the so-called Net Neutality rules, it did an end run around America's official representatives in Congress. As the OP noted, the courts have already ruled against a Federal bureaucracy assuming powers it can only be granted by the legislature. This veto, if there is one, can only be framed as Obama & the bureaucratic machine against the courts, the legislature, and the rule of law.
I just bought one of those for $229.99! I guess I should have known no sooner than I had installed the drive, Intel would come out with a brand new SSD and everything would be cheaper. Also OS X 10.7 with TRIM support is just around the corner. Oh well. This wasn't my first run-in with premature acquisition, and it probably won't be my last.
That there is warming may be your position. But that is not the position of the people being discussed.
Global Warming Theory espouses that not only is there some warming, but that man is the primary culprit in that warming, therefore a political dimension must be enacted to reign in man and his destructive habits. At this point "the science" around the AGW argument is largely found to be an exercise in confirmation bias (the subject of this thread).
In effect governments of the world have latched onto this warming idea and paid billions of dollars for "studies" that will justify their control of trillions of dollars. This cash and this motivation are at center of the pseudoscience bubble that's about to pop.
Without net neutrality, the idea of open source governance may never even get a chance to work. Your very freedom is in serious jeopardy, since we are on the brink: do we go ahead and adopt totalitarianism-through-Facebook(etc) or try to move to freedom-through-distributed-governance?
Ironic how The Peoples' Republic of America has been found "ungovernable" and surprise, surprise: the answer is governing at the STATE level! It's almost as if this guy is channelling the Founders.
Not necessarily. Religion is a very convenient and easily used excuse for barbaric acts. Sure, madmen can find other excuses at times to get people to do their evil bidding (like Stalin, Kim Jong, etc.), but it's not quite as easy as convincing people that God wants them to follow along with them. For the gullible (which is most of the population), that excuse is hard to argue against.
Apparently that wasn't the case in the 20th century.
Some would say we're still fighting the American Revolutionary War in 2010.
Few people realize it today, but the colonies were split right down the middle on revolution. Half wanted freedom and the America form of government, and the others were okay to go along with Britain and whatever Europe was doing.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Slashdot Mirror
Youâ(TM)d never know it from TFA, but there are literally riots in the streets of France over the fallout from these same energy policies.
Congress never voted on Net Neutrality. It was handed down as a regulatory fiat.
... at least thatâ(TM)s how it would be if the lame-stream media had its way.
The original site is unresponsive.
... And Take My Money!
That is the real question.
Citizens: Well, internet is better and now I have more choices.
Politicians: Death panels! Terroist fistbumps! Benghazi!
Obama: Internet access is the right of every American. If you don't buy an approved Internet Access Plan from the state exchange, say hello to my little frenz at the IRS.
Unfortunately, we have to let bureaucrats and the President make laws or nothing will be done.
Sounds like we should have elected someone like Hugo Chavez, a politician always issuing executive fiats "for the people." It worked for Venezuela, right?
It is easier to reclassify the broadband companies than to get them to play nice with the Internet. If there is REAL competition, they will get in line, because some new start-up can quickly state they have 'true' Net Neutrality.
Ironically you may have have hit on the real reason for passing Net Neutrality. The feelgood parts of the regulation touted on /. will be toothless. Meanwhile the fine print of the regulation will outlaw new start-ups and anything else approaching "REAL competition."
It might be better that way. I know I can't out-bid $MEGACORP on the Congressperson-purchasing market, err I mean campaign contribution donations. Unlike letting Congress handle this, there's actually a chance some random bureaucrat will do the right thing. A slim chance, yes, but a chance.
This /. story about a "vote" tries to make this agreement among bureaucrats look like something other than an executive fiat from a single Hugo Chavez. The idea is to convince you the representative democratic process is involved somehow. But rather than pick up on that, you seem to think it's more expensive to buy off half of a handful of regulators than to buy off most of Congress.
The only big problem with the FCC scenario is the standard revolving door between the regulators and future cushy jobs in the very industry they're supposed to be regulating.
So it's better to have bureaucrats handling everything, except for the fact that bureaucrats regularly come from and return to the industries they regulate and can be bought off rather easily. Nice bit of reasoning there.
It's interesting how this top-down regulatory move without the input of America's elected lawmakers is being characterized as the true Will Of The People. There's serious Newspeak going on here.
Math is telling the government that no, you can't spend more money than you've got forever, and yes, what it does is impacting other people. Some folks want any excuse to say, "So what. The government needs to 'help' everyone. Screw the next generation! The government needs more and more and more..."
The economics of the situation extends far beyond wages. Taxes, energy, distribution, and construction costs name a few. But perhaps the greatest cost to manufacture in America is the opportunity-lost-cost. If environmental regulations mean you have to wait months or even years to build a factory in America when you can break ground in China tomorrow, the decision on where manufacturing jobs go has already been made.
... & become the law of the land?
Mod parent up!
When the FCC redefined its own role by implementing the so-called Net Neutality rules, it did an end run around America's official representatives in Congress. As the OP noted, the courts have already ruled against a Federal bureaucracy assuming powers it can only be granted by the legislature. This veto, if there is one, can only be framed as Obama & the bureaucratic machine against the courts, the legislature, and the rule of law.
When the FCC redefined its own role by implementing the so-called Net Neutality rules, it did an end run around America's official representatives in Congress. As the OP noted, the courts have already ruled against a Federal bureaucracy assuming powers it can only be granted by the legislature. This veto, if there is one, can only be framed as Obama & the bureaucratic machine against the courts, the legislature, and the rule of law.
If an H1-B visa guy has your job in the electronics industry, where else is an engineer to go?
I just bought one of those for $229.99! I guess I should have known no sooner than I had installed the drive, Intel would come out with a brand new SSD and everything would be cheaper. Also OS X 10.7 with TRIM support is just around the corner. Oh well. This wasn't my first run-in with premature acquisition, and it probably won't be my last.
That there is warming may be your position. But that is not the position of the people being discussed.
Global Warming Theory espouses that not only is there some warming, but that man is the primary culprit in that warming, therefore a political dimension must be enacted to reign in man and his destructive habits. At this point "the science" around the AGW argument is largely found to be an exercise in confirmation bias (the subject of this thread).
In effect governments of the world have latched onto this warming idea and paid billions of dollars for "studies" that will justify their control of trillions of dollars. This cash and this motivation are at center of the pseudoscience bubble that's about to pop.
Without net neutrality, the idea of open source governance may never even get a chance to work. Your very freedom is in serious jeopardy, since we are on the brink: do we go ahead and adopt totalitarianism-through-Facebook(etc) or try to move to freedom-through-distributed-governance?
*cough* *cough* *cah--bullsh1T1* *cahm-plete bullsh1T* *cough*
These smaller form factors are overdue. Tower PCs the size of a labrador retriever are 90's technology.
Could have sworn that XP was not available before Windows 2000 -- but what do I know...
True. But after 10 years of OS X, XP looks like something from the 90's.
Ironic how The Peoples' Republic of America has been found "ungovernable" and surprise, surprise: the answer is governing at the STATE level! It's almost as if this guy is channelling the Founders.
Not necessarily. Religion is a very convenient and easily used excuse for barbaric acts. Sure, madmen can find other excuses at times to get people to do their evil bidding (like Stalin, Kim Jong, etc.), but it's not quite as easy as convincing people that God wants them to follow along with them. For the gullible (which is most of the population), that excuse is hard to argue against.
Apparently that wasn't the case in the 20th century.
Some would say we're still fighting the American Revolutionary War in 2010.
Few people realize it today, but the colonies were split right down the middle on revolution. Half wanted freedom and the America form of government, and the others were okay to go along with Britain and whatever Europe was doing.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.