why not? you don't like it? So you want to make something illegal because you don't like it. Sounds like the rationale for a lot of other nanny goverment laws.
The key word in your sentence is "YOU DECIDE". The way we're going, you have no decision whatsoever, other than to take your money and walk somewhere else. The way we're going, your ISP decides, and that decision is based on mutual corporate backscratching clubs. Plus if you take your money and walk, it will be to another ISP, who more likely than not is simply a member of a different mutual corporate backscratching club. You'll get to choose content from friends of ISP-A or content from friends of ISP-B.
OK so all the ISPs are gonna get together and make sure to screw you, this is already illegal, so why do we need another law preventing this?
Imagine for a moment if your phone company would let you call someone in New York City for free or cheap, but you have to pay a LOT to call someone in Portland, Oregon. Logical if you lived close to New York City, but outrageous if you lived in say, Corvallis, Oregon. THAT's what we're talking about.
I'd bitch to the phone company and take my money elsewhere if that was the case. But no, that would require personal responsibility and crap like that. Instead we'll FORCE companies to do something they don't want, may not be in their best interests and basically artificially manipulate markets because some people don't like it. Mob rule FTL.
An ability for ISPs to collude with large commercial interests/government to simply suffocate small operators and individual websites, particularly of "inconvenient" to the ruling elites' contents, by selling all the "priority" bandwidth to large corporations/government and throttling the rest severely. This allows for censorship and creation of monopolies all under a pretense of "market forces" at work.
So making a law will somehow keep this from happening?
It would mean the end to all peer-to-peer applications, large chunk of Internet gaming, small scale VPNs etc by introduction of massive latency resulting from now legalized throttling of all "not sufficiently profitable" traffic.
Right because this unregulated net has resulted in that already, not like i can't do BT or gaming on my big evil comcast subscription. whoops, i guessi still can.
Massive increase of costs for most commercial websites, which of course would simply be passed on consumers, which would in turn drive prices up for Internet commerce significantly, all with absolutely no improvement to the operation of these sites and with an overall deterioration of Internet service in general as mentioned above
And how about just letting the free market work it's magic.t
I dunno, i have comcast and i can get onto both their sites apparently.
But even if what you said were true, so fuckign what?
Why should't the net have fees? LET PEOPLE BLOODY DECIDE! You don't want fees? You don't want ads? fine, no site for you. I don't want the net regulated because some whiny asshole doesn't like the fact that he might have to put up with the free market.
And if you think that' sbad just wait tiil the government starts regulating it. Soon enough they'll be mroe and more rules and walla. We'll be in a 10x worse situation than if they did nothing.
Right, obviously, since we currently don't regulate the internet and things are just fine, we need to start regulating the internet because.... well something COULD happen. But then once we regulate the internet to some degree, we can then go on and regulate it even more, becuase there are websites out there that just shouldn't be viewed. ect ect.
i'm 27 for whatever that's worth, but the game was just so tedious. almost the exact same pattern of stuff over and over. One of the cool parts was the different guns, but so many were worthless anyways. I dunno, i regret dropping 50 for it. My main beef was perhaps the fact that those checkpoints always respawned people and clearing a checkpoint did nothing as far as i could tell.
Really? what is so terribly wrong with our infrastructure? a birdge in minnesota that... well shouldn't people in minnesota pay for?
Do you think Europe and Asia is afraid of using public money for these purposes? Maybe the answer to that has something to do with why we're losing ground and they are gaining.
China becoming more and more capitalistic has given them a lot of economic gains, your point would be what? I dunno what we're losing to europe exactly..
We do need to have some harsh regulations so that assholes like Comcast and the telecom cartels don't abuse us. But that is another story...
You really think comcast and company is worse than what would happen if we had a government ISP? I suppose you can come up with an idealistic view of what a government ISP would be like, and i can say it will never happen. It will suck. It will be horrible. 44 billion for the internet? like it's hard to go to a local library and use the internet if you need to? what a bloody waste of money.
for an internship i'd say forget which pays you better. if you have multiple offers, get the one that you think will be better in the long run. IE they often hire interns full time, or they offer great networking capabilities, or which would be more challenging/fun/interesting.
lol somehwat off subject, but man what a jolt it was to read that book as a 12 year old. All sorts of swearing (I believe page 19 had what i considered at that time, a paragraph full of swearing lol) and a min sex scene, which was... well (this was just before the internet was everywhere, so...) page 142 i think or maybe 143. if my mom only knew:)
You can claim transactions in the free market are voluntary, but the reality is, most people get the choice of being kicked in the balls, or stabbed in the neck. They 'choose' getting kicked in the balls because the only other option is worse.
I mean good lord i dunno what it is you have to pay for that's that bad.
How do you explain the fact that the top 10% took 90% of the increase in the GDP for the last 30 years? Do you really think those people deserve it? Do you really think everyone else would go along with it, if not for force?
Well i deserve to get some of bill gates money because it's not fair he gets so much.
Do you really think the little guy stands a chance in court against huge corporate legal teams?
A good argument for deregulation. And yes i do think the little stands a chance. In fact, in many cases they can thrive.
a housing bubble is certainly not a pyramid scheme. I dunno what kind of definition you're using for pyramid scheme, but it's nothing like anything i've heard.
The crisis is not about people getting houses they can't afford. It is about unregulated financial instruments. The default rate has little to do with it.
Umm no, it's about people not being able to pay for their houses, hence they couldn't afford them. Banks and the people who took the loans are to blame.
All the money that went into pumping up the housing market could have gone into creating jobs. My analysis stands, you have not refuted it.
yeah ok we can just determine where the money goes. right.
I guess you really are a socialist. Or a troll. You haven't made much of a point. You've jumped to a lot of conclusions that don't make much sense. But you live in a world where people with money have guns and force you to do stuff and where you're only choices are getting kicked in the balls or stabbed in the neck. I just can't relate.
Who's using economic power to redestribute wealth??? walmart gives me the option to buy shampoo for a lower cost than rite aid, so where do i buy shampoo most of the time? walmart. (actually costco but..) Where's the force? Bill gates made MS.. where's the force? If ms doesn't pay me enough as a programmer, i'll go work for ibm or some start up and then MS will have to face me as competition. They have more say in who gets the income, but if they want income, they still have compete for me (and others) to work there and generate income for them. Which means i get to pick who gives me the better insentives.
Economic force is backed up by men with guns. Otherwise, people would simply equalize the imbalance once it reached the point of unfairness. People like to reward excellence in others, but they do not like to be taken advantage of.
right so people don't get taken advantage of, they can sue, they can sue, go else where with their money, or even promote the competition of someplace they've been taken advantage of. I mean, where is this force backed with guns coming from?
The rich use money to cheat at the economic system. They enforce an oligopoly in many areas. They refuse to pay a decent wage, instead choosing to take unreasonable and unearned profits.
The rich use their money to get richer. how do they do that? they invest it. They refuse to pay a decent wage?? First, go back to what i said before, if a company isn't paying you what you should be earning for a job, leave. Second most companies i've seen that are succesfull treat their employees well. I'm sure there's plenty of counter points, but again, as an employee, leave. There are always other options. Atleast in the US where i think we still have a good amount of free market left.
The crazy pyramid scheme I am talking about is quite evident, or didn't you notice the economic crisis brought on by bad investing practices?
OK so banks and it's customer's made bad investments, this is a pyramid scheme??? I just looked up pyramid scheme on wikipedia and it says: A pyramid scheme is a non-sustainable business model that involves the exchange of money primarily for enrolling other people into the scheme, without any product or service being delivered. It has been known to come under many guises.
people were buying houses they couldn't afford, and banks were lending them the money. That is certainly not a pyramid scheme, it's bad investing for sure. And this somehow means the rich did not want to invest in new jobs? non sequitur.
Think of this, centuries of capitalism have gotten us where: Crime, drugs, ignorance, pollution, you name it.
OMG no, people do drugs, that's so bad. horrible. Wait.. shouldn't they be able to do what they want to do? Ignorance, that's certaintly something that only comes with capitalism... along with sarcasm. Pollution, you mean advances of knowledge and ability have side affects? i'm shocked. Crime , hell i really have no clue if crime has gotten better or worse really. But i don't think it's at horrible levels now, especially considering doing something like smoking weed is a crime, or gambling your own money. Damn capitlism for giving people motivation and encouraging progression.
I think we experience some of our bigger problems because we're not capitalistic enough. We do things like bailout banks and people for making bad decisions, which really just keeps the bubble inflated instead of letting it pop. And we artificially manipulate the markets. and over regulate things.
Wealth redistribution has already happened. The top 1% took most of the increase in GNP for the last 30 years, and the top 10% took most of the rest, leaving less than 10% for the bottom 90% of us to split.
That's not wealth redistribution, that's people earning different incomes.
Money is power. Specifically, it is the power to control other people. It is anti-democratic. Having more money makes making money easier, because you can siphon off the value created by other people, using economic force. Economic force is just as real as political force, as it is backed up by the same 'men with guns.'
having money is anti democratic? let's hear some reason for that please. And sorry but economic force is not backed up by men with guns. Walmart can employee people, can make money off of people, but they cant' force me or their employees to do a whole lot. Really the only force they have is the ability to buy politicians, which is anti democratic but, not exactly a reason for socialism. A reason to get rid of lobbying though.
All the socialists want is to use collective power to offset the power amassed by capitalist robber barons. It is better for the economy, too. Look at the stock market during Republican presidential terms as opposed to Democratic presidential terms. If you had invested in stock only during Republican presidencies over the last 100 years, you would have made, on average,.4% on your investment. If you had invested only during Democratic terms, you would have made 8.4%.
I'm sorry what bloody power is it you keep talking about these elite people to have over us mere mortals? I mean i can go do pretty much what i want. If i want to open a buisness i can, if I want to go to disney land i can, if i want to make fun of our politicians i can. I think we need to get rid of lobbying, but, even lobbying isn't that effective. Although it has made gambling online a felony in Washington state.
I'd love to see some statistics from decent sources that say that you would have only made.4% back during republican terms and 8.4% during democratic terms. I do not thing that's correct because i thought the return was about 10-9% in the stock market per year(on average), which certainly wouldn't be true if what you're saying is even close to being correct.
See, the thing is, when the wealth is shared by all who produce it, the economy works better. The rich still get rich, but they know what to invest in: what people are buying. When the money just goes to the rich, they create crazy pyramid schemes instead of investing in job creation, because they don't have to care about the piddly 10% of wealth that the bottom 90% control.
what crazy pyramid schemes are you talking about? the rich can do the same things i can do, just at a much larger scale. I'm pretty sure pyramid schemes fail more often than not, but hey maybe i'm wrong about that.
I wonder if i've been trolled, but you're a low 4 digit with positive karma.
You know, I've been in the software development world for over 3 years. I really wonder how many 'best/brightest' minds in the industry there can be. Every other software group seems to think it is made up of extraordinary people. I really find it quite arrogant.
Slashdot Mirror
why not? you don't like it? So you want to make something illegal because you don't like it. Sounds like the rationale for a lot of other nanny goverment laws.
The key word in your sentence is "YOU DECIDE". The way we're going, you have no decision whatsoever, other than to take your money and walk somewhere else. The way we're going, your ISP decides, and that decision is based on mutual corporate backscratching clubs. Plus if you take your money and walk, it will be to another ISP, who more likely than not is simply a member of a different mutual corporate backscratching club. You'll get to choose content from friends of ISP-A or content from friends of ISP-B.
OK so all the ISPs are gonna get together and make sure to screw you, this is already illegal, so why do we need another law preventing this?
Imagine for a moment if your phone company would let you call someone in New York City for free or cheap, but you have to pay a LOT to call someone in Portland, Oregon. Logical if you lived close to New York City, but outrageous if you lived in say, Corvallis, Oregon. THAT's what we're talking about.
I'd bitch to the phone company and take my money elsewhere if that was the case. But no, that would require personal responsibility and crap like that. Instead we'll FORCE companies to do something they don't want, may not be in their best interests and basically artificially manipulate markets because some people don't like it. Mob rule FTL.
An ability for ISPs to collude with large commercial interests/government to simply suffocate small operators and individual websites, particularly of "inconvenient" to the ruling elites' contents, by selling all the "priority" bandwidth to large corporations/government and throttling the rest severely. This allows for censorship and creation of monopolies all under a pretense of "market forces" at work.
So making a law will somehow keep this from happening?
It would mean the end to all peer-to-peer applications, large chunk of Internet gaming, small scale VPNs etc by introduction of massive latency resulting from now legalized throttling of all "not sufficiently profitable" traffic.
Right because this unregulated net has resulted in that already, not like i can't do BT or gaming on my big evil comcast subscription. whoops, i guessi still can.
Massive increase of costs for most commercial websites, which of course would simply be passed on consumers, which would in turn drive prices up for Internet commerce significantly, all with absolutely no improvement to the operation of these sites and with an overall deterioration of Internet service in general as mentioned above
And how about just letting the free market work it's magic.t
I dunno, i have comcast and i can get onto both their sites apparently.
But even if what you said were true, so fuckign what?
Why should't the net have fees? LET PEOPLE BLOODY DECIDE! You don't want fees? You don't want ads? fine, no site for you. I don't want the net regulated because some whiny asshole doesn't like the fact that he might have to put up with the free market.
And if you think that' sbad just wait tiil the government starts regulating it. Soon enough they'll be mroe and more rules and walla. We'll be in a 10x worse situation than if they did nothing.
Right, obviously, since we currently don't regulate the internet and things are just fine, we need to start regulating the internet because.... well something COULD happen. But then once we regulate the internet to some degree, we can then go on and regulate it even more, becuase there are websites out there that just shouldn't be viewed. ect ect.
i'm 27 for whatever that's worth, but the game was just so tedious. almost the exact same pattern of stuff over and over. One of the cool parts was the different guns, but so many were worthless anyways. I dunno, i regret dropping 50 for it. My main beef was perhaps the fact that those checkpoints always respawned people and clearing a checkpoint did nothing as far as i could tell.
and this is why we let the free market just work and dont' do anything stupid like try to get the federal government to pay for it.
it took me so long to not immediatly think of that when i read/heard the word zealot.
my life for Aiur!(sp?)
yay for unneeded government regulation.
We need infrastructure spending.
Really? what is so terribly wrong with our infrastructure? a birdge in minnesota that... well shouldn't people in minnesota pay for?
Do you think Europe and Asia is afraid of using public money for these purposes? Maybe the answer to that has something to do with why we're losing ground and they are gaining.
China becoming more and more capitalistic has given them a lot of economic gains, your point would be what? I dunno what we're losing to europe exactly..
We do need to have some harsh regulations so that assholes like Comcast and the telecom cartels don't abuse us. But that is another story...
You really think comcast and company is worse than what would happen if we had a government ISP? I suppose you can come up with an idealistic view of what a government ISP would be like, and i can say it will never happen. It will suck. It will be horrible. 44 billion for the internet? like it's hard to go to a local library and use the internet if you need to? what a bloody waste of money.
the bigger the government the more inefficient the government gets. just wait til the EU becomes more and more powerful over the countries inside it.
Look at all the corporations. the bigger they get, the more inefficient they are.
CS 1.6 has ads in game, on top of the player listing(tab) and in some of their maps like de_dust2.
i wonder how long it will be, before obama is worst president ever and GWB isn't quite that bad.
lol can't wait. I give it 3-6 years. may not happen if he doesn't get 2 terms in though.
yeah, an agreement between 2 entities is such a bad bad thing. It's no more artificial than a contract.
Obviously it's only software companies that give these ceos these golden parachutes.
leave, leave now before the admin bans you!
for an internship i'd say forget which pays you better. if you have multiple offers, get the one that you think will be better in the long run. IE they often hire interns full time, or they offer great networking capabilities, or which would be more challenging/fun/interesting.
lol somehwat off subject, but man what a jolt it was to read that book as a 12 year old. All sorts of swearing (I believe page 19 had what i considered at that time, a paragraph full of swearing lol) and a min sex scene, which was... well (this was just before the internet was everywhere, so...) page 142 i think or maybe 143. if my mom only knew :)
Where the heck do you live? i mean really..
You can claim transactions in the free market are voluntary, but the reality is, most people get the choice of being kicked in the balls, or stabbed in the neck. They 'choose' getting kicked in the balls because the only other option is worse.
I mean good lord i dunno what it is you have to pay for that's that bad.
How do you explain the fact that the top 10% took 90% of the increase in the GDP for the last 30 years? Do you really think those people deserve it? Do you really think everyone else would go along with it, if not for force?
Well i deserve to get some of bill gates money because it's not fair he gets so much.
Do you really think the little guy stands a chance in court against huge corporate legal teams?
A good argument for deregulation. And yes i do think the little stands a chance. In fact, in many cases they can thrive.
a housing bubble is certainly not a pyramid scheme. I dunno what kind of definition you're using for pyramid scheme, but it's nothing like anything i've heard.
The crisis is not about people getting houses they can't afford. It is about unregulated financial instruments. The default rate has little to do with it.
Umm no, it's about people not being able to pay for their houses, hence they couldn't afford them. Banks and the people who took the loans are to blame.
All the money that went into pumping up the housing market could have gone into creating jobs. My analysis stands, you have not refuted it.
yeah ok we can just determine where the money goes. right.
I guess you really are a socialist. Or a troll. You haven't made much of a point. You've jumped to a lot of conclusions that don't make much sense. But you live in a world where people with money have guns and force you to do stuff and where you're only choices are getting kicked in the balls or stabbed in the neck. I just can't relate.
Who's using economic power to redestribute wealth??? walmart gives me the option to buy shampoo for a lower cost than rite aid, so where do i buy shampoo most of the time? walmart. (actually costco but..) Where's the force? Bill gates made MS.. where's the force? If ms doesn't pay me enough as a programmer, i'll go work for ibm or some start up and then MS will have to face me as competition. They have more say in who gets the income, but if they want income, they still have compete for me (and others) to work there and generate income for them. Which means i get to pick who gives me the better insentives.
Economic force is backed up by men with guns. Otherwise, people would simply equalize the imbalance once it reached the point of unfairness. People like to reward excellence in others, but they do not like to be taken advantage of.
right so people don't get taken advantage of, they can sue, they can sue, go else where with their money, or even promote the competition of someplace they've been taken advantage of. I mean, where is this force backed with guns coming from?
The rich use money to cheat at the economic system. They enforce an oligopoly in many areas. They refuse to pay a decent wage, instead choosing to take unreasonable and unearned profits.
The rich use their money to get richer. how do they do that? they invest it. They refuse to pay a decent wage?? First, go back to what i said before, if a company isn't paying you what you should be earning for a job, leave. Second most companies i've seen that are succesfull treat their employees well. I'm sure there's plenty of counter points, but again, as an employee, leave. There are always other options. Atleast in the US where i think we still have a good amount of free market left.
The crazy pyramid scheme I am talking about is quite evident, or didn't you notice the economic crisis brought on by bad investing practices?
OK so banks and it's customer's made bad investments, this is a pyramid scheme??? I just looked up pyramid scheme on wikipedia and it says: A pyramid scheme is a non-sustainable business model that involves the exchange of money primarily for enrolling other people into the scheme, without any product or service being delivered. It has been known to come under many guises.
people were buying houses they couldn't afford, and banks were lending them the money. That is certainly not a pyramid scheme, it's bad investing for sure. And this somehow means the rich did not want to invest in new jobs? non sequitur.
well i also apparently hit the wrong reply to this button.
Damnit.
then they grow up and suddenly they don't cuss at trivial things anymore
the fuck i don't!
Think of this, centuries of capitalism have gotten us where: Crime, drugs, ignorance, pollution, you name it.
OMG no, people do drugs, that's so bad. horrible. Wait.. shouldn't they be able to do what they want to do? Ignorance, that's certaintly something that only comes with capitalism... along with sarcasm. Pollution, you mean advances of knowledge and ability have side affects? i'm shocked. Crime , hell i really have no clue if crime has gotten better or worse really. But i don't think it's at horrible levels now, especially considering doing something like smoking weed is a crime, or gambling your own money. Damn capitlism for giving people motivation and encouraging progression.
I think we experience some of our bigger problems because we're not capitalistic enough. We do things like bailout banks and people for making bad decisions, which really just keeps the bubble inflated instead of letting it pop. And we artificially manipulate the markets. and over regulate things.
Wealth redistribution has already happened. The top 1% took most of the increase in GNP for the last 30 years, and the top 10% took most of the rest, leaving less than 10% for the bottom 90% of us to split.
That's not wealth redistribution, that's people earning different incomes.
Money is power. Specifically, it is the power to control other people. It is anti-democratic. Having more money makes making money easier, because you can siphon off the value created by other people, using economic force. Economic force is just as real as political force, as it is backed up by the same 'men with guns.'
having money is anti democratic? let's hear some reason for that please. And sorry but economic force is not backed up by men with guns. Walmart can employee people, can make money off of people, but they cant' force me or their employees to do a whole lot. Really the only force they have is the ability to buy politicians, which is anti democratic but, not exactly a reason for socialism. A reason to get rid of lobbying though.
All the socialists want is to use collective power to offset the power amassed by capitalist robber barons. It is better for the economy, too. Look at the stock market during Republican presidential terms as opposed to Democratic presidential terms. If you had invested in stock only during Republican presidencies over the last 100 years, you would have made, on average, .4% on your investment. If you had invested only during Democratic terms, you would have made 8.4%.
I'm sorry what bloody power is it you keep talking about these elite people to have over us mere mortals? I mean i can go do pretty much what i want. If i want to open a buisness i can, if I want to go to disney land i can, if i want to make fun of our politicians i can. I think we need to get rid of lobbying, but, even lobbying isn't that effective. Although it has made gambling online a felony in Washington state.
I'd love to see some statistics from decent sources that say that you would have only made .4% back during republican terms and 8.4% during democratic terms. I do not thing that's correct because i thought the return was about 10-9% in the stock market per year(on average), which certainly wouldn't be true if what you're saying is even close to being correct.
See, the thing is, when the wealth is shared by all who produce it, the economy works better. The rich still get rich, but they know what to invest in: what people are buying. When the money just goes to the rich, they create crazy pyramid schemes instead of investing in job creation, because they don't have to care about the piddly 10% of wealth that the bottom 90% control.
what crazy pyramid schemes are you talking about? the rich can do the same things i can do, just at a much larger scale. I'm pretty sure pyramid schemes fail more often than not, but hey maybe i'm wrong about that.
I wonder if i've been trolled, but you're a low 4 digit with positive karma.
You know, I've been in the software development world for over 3 years. I really wonder how many 'best/brightest' minds in the industry there can be. Every other software group seems to think it is made up of extraordinary people. I really find it quite arrogant.
And the fact that it might not technically be a search engine, makes exactly what bogus?