You may remember the dot com bubble? lots of things were over invested in.. including ISPs.
I don't think you could say with a straight face the internet was as remotely as usable as it is today or had the wealth of information it does today. Of course not all of that because of the big corporations, but much of it is. MSN, AIM, games, bunch of stuff from google all things I use on a daily basis.
Because it does, over and over, and people like you just make up excuses as to why it doesn't count. ISPs using Sandvine to disconnect Lotus, VPN and bittorrent users and then lying about it, Bell Canada throttling OTHER ISPs' users' internet connections.
I see so some isolated incidents are reasons for regulating it? But hey, all we really need are fraud laws, you know, that prevent companies from lying..
Oh wait, a handful of people who had another choice for internet access that didn't do the exact same shit switched, so it's all good, right? It's everyone else's fault for not moving somewhere where the ISP couldn't take advantage of them like that.
there are no perfect options. however a free market will lead to improvement. it will probably be slow and steady. You and everyone else wants to put the same basic people who couldn't catch bernie madoff, in charge of the internet. it will not work. it will not have the desired effects. it will backfire.
The fed had a part, but mainly it was corporate greed.
the fed was quite key. low interest rates = free money = mal investments. And hey, look how many people from goldman sachs are in the government. Quite a few.
But then they gamble with free money, and we bail them out..
if the companies have say over what does and doesn't go over their network, what do you think they're gonna do? They'll happily let customers gab about how they such? Ha, right. How about letting their customers offer a competing service? Ha. What about letting anyone else offer a competing service? Uh no.
Why hasn't it happened yet? comcast has tried and it gets a lot of shit, and has lost customers over it. You're trying to solve a problem that maybe could exist.
It is *HARD* to go and get rights to lay cable, not even counting the expense of doing it.
It's hard to build an airplane too. or a car. or even an operating system. That's 1 reason why businesses exist.
Pull your head out of the sand and look around.
I did, and I see no reason to regulate a system, that has served so many people so well.
because if the government didn't mandate it, it wouldn't happen.. except that cars were made safer not because of regulations, but because people wanted them. and even if those were perfect regulations (which they're not) there's only thousands upon thousands of others that are so fucked up it's amazing.
the road to hell is paved with good intentions. net neutrality, will backfire. possible with the government then getting involved in regulating content. possible making it illegal to use SSH. possibly many other ways I can't think of. But it will happen. And that's ignoring the fact net neutrality means less of a free market.
Corporations are not the solution, corporations are the problem. Without the government having the ability to enforce fair dealing, corporate interests are going to stomp all over consumers.
Corporations + government is the problem. Corporations that can't be in bed with government is the solution. Federal Government that tries to regulate, fails as almost all centralized planning does.
Maybe you remember what happened when we let the banking industry self-regulate.
Funny, I was listening to people talk about the dangers of the federal reserve's policy that would cause the last mess, and watched them get laughed at.
I guess having bureaucrats decide what can and can't be on the Integer is right up the Libtard's alley when it comes to "bigger government".
FWIW i'm not a tea party member.
You guys seriously want to have a bunch of bureaucrats go in and regulate something that has been so successful and has provided so much information and knowledge (along with p0rn and nutshot videos), that hasn't really been regulated thus far, out of fear that companies might do something that would drive away customers?
I read the link, and since it requires registration of sorts to dl the pdf, I won't do that.
But it seems like a very macro level type of study, and that seems to gloss over technical details that you need when judging a language.
To use a car analogy, if you're measuring accident avoidance, and you note that the prius has the least amount of accidents, therefor it's the best for avoiding accidents. Ignoring the fact that what you're doing if your driving a prius, or the type of person that typically would use a prius. In otherwords the fact that it's a prius is probably fairly irrelevant.
Not that this type of study shouldn't be done, but just that it's hardly conclusive.
it's the God-like reverence with which they and their document are treated with today.
Because it's a very good document.
Although I support the rule of law, the constitution was written almost 225 years ago, for a union of 13 states. Much has changed since then, and the constitution provides an amendment process for this very purpose.
People say all the time, that much has changed. That is true, but just because we travel/trade/communicate far more effectively than we did 200 years ago, doesn't mean that the role of government should change at all.
It's no surprise that, as people traveled and traded from state-to-state that the federal government would grow in size and importance.
It's not really a surprise, but that doesn't mean it should happen.
The role of government, in my view, and as far as I can tell, in the view of the founders, is to protect freedom. That doesn't change just because we have new tools available.
So you agree that government interfering is a problem.. but you think more government intervention is the solution?
Wireless is a huge competitor. Why would someone buy the internet at home, if they can get it on their phone? assuming they do little else beyond email/occasional web browsing. it's not what I want(mostly cus of gaming habbits), but i also have options.
There's so much money to be made.. people won't just sit back and say, comcast is censoring and fucking their customers, I'm gonna sit back and do nothing.
You can reach a point where some peoples' heads are so filled with free-market talking points that they just can't see the monitor in front of their face.
that's because the monitor was provided by the free market. And people love to over look all the good things they have because of the free market.
If we let Comcast and AT&T decide what the internet is going to become, the one technological advance that has actually brought to reality the hopes and foresight that I read about in science fiction way back when will disappear faster than coke up a super-model's nose.
Well, they can't really just decide, can they? no. they have plenty of competition. And if they somehow bought up competition, and they started to be to restrictive, guess what? new competition would be born. So long as they haven't bought off the regulators (in other words, so long as we still have a free market)
All you free-market fantasists ask yourself this: If AT&T and Comcast decide who gets bandwidth and who doesn't how long do you think there will be a Wikileaks?
like i said above, it wouldn't happen.
Why the fuck am I asking you anyway, because you don't lack the foresight to even understand why that's such an innovation (not you, Chris, but the butterbrains who think the "free market" is anything but a mechanism to siphon wealth from the bottom of society to the top).
in a free market, you cannot force others to pay you. So the only way you get their money, is to offer them something the want. So the net wealth goes up. You think the world would be better off without bill gates? I don't think so. look at all the jobs he created. you think it'd be better off without ted turner? same thing. People get rich, largely, by providing something other's want. Of course, with regulations you and everyone else wants, they can then also get rich by bribing government officials.
It boils down to a simple principle: freedom. You know, what we supposedly cherish in this country(US). What you and most people don't get is, it means freedom for everyone, not just the people you choose.
What's up with people saying this? Look around, especially to wall street and the gulf of mexico.
wall street was largely because of the government(dot com bubble collapsed, what's the response? to try to reinflate the bubble. Housing bubble collapses, whats the response? to try and reinflate the bubble. We're going to go through another crash). the oil spill sucks, and shit does happen, but who's gonna pay for it? the company that spilled it. And Likely no one will die. There will be some damage, it's true, but there's a huge incentive for this not to happen (like it costing BP 3billion, the number i got from CNN).
Slashdot Mirror
yeah good luck having 30 people place Starcraft 2 on those machines.
you know, i always wondered about that theme song, and why it was chosen..
that's fine advice for something important you rely upon. but for a hobby project, fuck that. if it ain't broke it ain't fun :P
How many games out there require administrator access to run?
How many programs out there require administrator access to run?
player 2 was ms. pacman.
of course this gets modded up. it's easy to dismiss something when you can just blindly point your fingers at 'wacko religious people'.
In any case, 1 acronym for you: RTFA
maybe because it's a pretty good example of the point being made?
You may remember the dot com bubble? lots of things were over invested in.. including ISPs.
I don't think you could say with a straight face the internet was as remotely as usable as it is today or had the wealth of information it does today. Of course not all of that because of the big corporations, but much of it is. MSN, AIM, games, bunch of stuff from google all things I use on a daily basis.
Your nostalgia is showing.
Because it does, over and over, and people like you just make up excuses as to why it doesn't count. ISPs using Sandvine to disconnect Lotus, VPN and bittorrent users and then lying about it, Bell Canada throttling OTHER ISPs' users' internet connections.
I see so some isolated incidents are reasons for regulating it? But hey, all we really need are fraud laws, you know, that prevent companies from lying..
Oh wait, a handful of people who had another choice for internet access that didn't do the exact same shit switched, so it's all good, right? It's everyone else's fault for not moving somewhere where the ISP couldn't take advantage of them like that.
there are no perfect options. however a free market will lead to improvement. it will probably be slow and steady. You and everyone else wants to put the same basic people who couldn't catch bernie madoff, in charge of the internet. it will not work. it will not have the desired effects. it will backfire.
Corps would grind your grandma into crackers if they thought they could make a buck and get away with it.
well some companies do offer cremation. the problem with everything you said, is that, for corp to get money from me.. i have to give them money.
The fed had a part, but mainly it was corporate greed.
the fed was quite key. low interest rates = free money = mal investments. And hey, look how many people from goldman sachs are in the government. Quite a few.
But then they gamble with free money, and we bail them out..
when they take your freedom away from you
which is what net neutrality does.
if the companies have say over what does and doesn't go over their network, what do you think they're gonna do? They'll happily let customers gab about how they such? Ha, right. How about letting their customers offer a competing service? Ha. What about letting anyone else offer a competing service? Uh no.
Why hasn't it happened yet? comcast has tried and it gets a lot of shit, and has lost customers over it. You're trying to solve a problem that maybe could exist.
It is *HARD* to go and get rights to lay cable, not even counting the expense of doing it.
It's hard to build an airplane too. or a car. or even an operating system. That's 1 reason why businesses exist.
Pull your head out of the sand and look around.
I did, and I see no reason to regulate a system, that has served so many people so well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPqdRqacpFk&playnext_from=TL&videos=o4wSFEuWQfY
but even still, nothing like that compares to how many people governments have killed.
For the same reason as other government regulations.
along with all the unintended consequences.
because if the government didn't mandate it, it wouldn't happen.. except that cars were made safer not because of regulations, but because people wanted them. and even if those were perfect regulations (which they're not) there's only thousands upon thousands of others that are so fucked up it's amazing.
the road to hell is paved with good intentions. net neutrality, will backfire. possible with the government then getting involved in regulating content. possible making it illegal to use SSH. possibly many other ways I can't think of. But it will happen. And that's ignoring the fact net neutrality means less of a free market.
Corporations are not the solution, corporations are the problem. Without the government having the ability to enforce fair dealing, corporate interests are going to stomp all over consumers.
Corporations + government is the problem. Corporations that can't be in bed with government is the solution. Federal Government that tries to regulate, fails as almost all centralized planning does.
Maybe you remember what happened when we let the banking industry self-regulate.
Funny, I was listening to people talk about the dangers of the federal reserve's policy that would cause the last mess, and watched them get laughed at.
I guess having bureaucrats decide what can and can't be on the Integer is right up the Libtard's alley when it comes to "bigger government".
FWIW i'm not a tea party member.
You guys seriously want to have a bunch of bureaucrats go in and regulate something that has been so successful and has provided so much information and knowledge (along with p0rn and nutshot videos), that hasn't really been regulated thus far, out of fear that companies might do something that would drive away customers?
you keep a jolly ranger in your mouth
I guess having a ranger in your mouth might make him jolly.
I read the link, and since it requires registration of sorts to dl the pdf, I won't do that.
But it seems like a very macro level type of study, and that seems to gloss over technical details that you need when judging a language.
To use a car analogy, if you're measuring accident avoidance, and you note that the prius has the least amount of accidents, therefor it's the best for avoiding accidents. Ignoring the fact that what you're doing if your driving a prius, or the type of person that typically would use a prius. In otherwords the fact that it's a prius is probably fairly irrelevant.
Not that this type of study shouldn't be done, but just that it's hardly conclusive.
it's the God-like reverence with which they and their document are treated with today.
Because it's a very good document.
Although I support the rule of law, the constitution was written almost 225 years ago, for a union of 13 states. Much has changed since then, and the constitution provides an amendment process for this very purpose.
People say all the time, that much has changed. That is true, but just because we travel/trade/communicate far more effectively than we did 200 years ago, doesn't mean that the role of government should change at all.
It's no surprise that, as people traveled and traded from state-to-state that the federal government would grow in size and importance.
It's not really a surprise, but that doesn't mean it should happen.
The role of government, in my view, and as far as I can tell, in the view of the founders, is to protect freedom. That doesn't change just because we have new tools available.
So you agree that government interfering is a problem.. but you think more government intervention is the solution?
Wireless is a huge competitor. Why would someone buy the internet at home, if they can get it on their phone? assuming they do little else beyond email/occasional web browsing. it's not what I want(mostly cus of gaming habbits), but i also have options.
There's so much money to be made.. people won't just sit back and say, comcast is censoring and fucking their customers, I'm gonna sit back and do nothing.
There's nothing illegal about circumventing the law. That's why it's called "circumventing", and not "breaking".
Which is a nice indication of the system being broken.
You can reach a point where some peoples' heads are so filled with free-market talking points that they just can't see the monitor in front of their face.
that's because the monitor was provided by the free market. And people love to over look all the good things they have because of the free market.
If we let Comcast and AT&T decide what the internet is going to become, the one technological advance that has actually brought to reality the hopes and foresight that I read about in science fiction way back when will disappear faster than coke up a super-model's nose.
Well, they can't really just decide, can they? no. they have plenty of competition. And if they somehow bought up competition, and they started to be to restrictive, guess what? new competition would be born. So long as they haven't bought off the regulators (in other words, so long as we still have a free market)
All you free-market fantasists ask yourself this: If AT&T and Comcast decide who gets bandwidth and who doesn't how long do you think there will be a Wikileaks?
like i said above, it wouldn't happen.
Why the fuck am I asking you anyway, because you don't lack the foresight to even understand why that's such an innovation (not you, Chris, but the butterbrains who think the "free market" is anything but a mechanism to siphon wealth from the bottom of society to the top).
in a free market, you cannot force others to pay you. So the only way you get their money, is to offer them something the want. So the net wealth goes up. You think the world would be better off without bill gates? I don't think so. look at all the jobs he created. you think it'd be better off without ted turner? same thing. People get rich, largely, by providing something other's want. Of course, with regulations you and everyone else wants, they can then also get rich by bribing government officials.
It boils down to a simple principle: freedom. You know, what we supposedly cherish in this country(US). What you and most people don't get is, it means freedom for everyone, not just the people you choose.
What's up with people saying this? Look around, especially to wall street and the gulf of mexico.
wall street was largely because of the government(dot com bubble collapsed, what's the response? to try to reinflate the bubble. Housing bubble collapses, whats the response? to try and reinflate the bubble. We're going to go through another crash). the oil spill sucks, and shit does happen, but who's gonna pay for it? the company that spilled it. And Likely no one will die. There will be some damage, it's true, but there's a huge incentive for this not to happen (like it costing BP 3billion, the number i got from CNN).