The Internet was born from the government and has always existed under regulations
That's true, to an extent. But the reality is, the internet has been pretty much unregulated.
Making some changes to those regulations to ensure that the large ISPs that control the infrastructure don't start making moves to line their pockets at everyone else's expense, just because they can, is not a bad thing
It's a very bad thing. Just like price controls are bad. just like communism is bad. What is good, is this thing call freedom. Which means freedom for everyone, even those you don't like.
It's not giving the government more control over the Internet.
They get the power to enforce 'fairness', and that's not giving them power?
It's telling those ISPs that they don't have the right to implement their own regulations over what can be sent over the net and at what speeds, just to generate more revenue for themselves.
Why shouldn't they be able to? because you don't like it? I don't like the fact a porsche costs too much money, so let's regulate them too. And btw, where's teh great examples of this happening? we haven't had the internet long enough for it to happen?
So if some corporation wants to steal money from you, but some other department, wants to legit business, you're gonna do business with them? I imagine not, why would the government be any different?
Oh good, another slippery slope fallacy.
Oh, it's a fallacy? you think, if you hand them power they'll not demand more? are you serious? it's not a fallacy it's a fact. "The natural progress of things is liberty to yield and government gain ground" ~ Thomas Jefferson.
Well I'm not buying it. Net Neutrality is a worthy goal
freedom is worthy goal. Control is not. Doesn't matter that it's only control of people you don't like. (for now)
Nannies are generally useful, and sometimes they're hot too!
for children, sure. But I should not be forced into having a nanny to protect myself. I'm an adult.
Bureaucrats vary wildly in their usefulness, but generally perform tasks that need to be done.
Sure, some of their tasks need to be done, but the vast majority of it is just bullshit. If you don't agree, then you better get on explaining how the endless piles of laws is useful, when our constitution was a whole couple of pages long.
As for control, I'd actually prefer that it be balanced in the interest of preserving openness
This idea, of forcing freedom, i think is an oxymoron.
I obviously can't depend on them to preserve it.
as opposed to depending on the government who has enough trouble defending our first and second amendments.
They want to lock it down and monetize every possible avenue they can.
And if they keep providing me with a valueable service that i am willing to pay for, so what. BUt then, why haven't these things happened?
I don't advocate giving the government the power to micromanage the net, or to shut it down at will, but I do think that telling the ISPs what they can't do is a good idea
that's quite a contradiction in my eye. And what do you think will happen in a few years, when something else happens and the government wants more power? you think they'll jsut say, nah we can't do that? Nope, they'll just do it, after all it's for the good of the people.
To be frank, how can you be so blind, when you have all this talk of the government wanting a kill switch? and you willing give them more power??? And look at what happened in egypt.
BTW, if corporations have been lying and committing fraud, we already have laws about that sort of thing.
FCC gets net neutrality, how long until they need to start policing the content? We already have enough of that bs to deal with. The net has been run by corporations for quite awhile, and there's no major problems with it, and you guys just jump for joy at the thought of giving more power to the government.
The FCC wants to regulate the corporations not the Internet.
why is it that on slashdot, with the talk of violation of civil liberties by the government, this general attitude about the FCC/net neutrality still exists? It's so sad that you guys who understand the value of civil liberties do not understand the government really is not pro individual or pro freedom. it's pro power. If the FCC had the power to regulate the internet and did so, and even assuming everything was as people wanted, how long do you think that would last? how long until we get the FCC spying to protect the children?
100-200 million people dead. because of three men basically. If you really think that compares with anything you listed, nothing I can say will convince you otherwise.
You can blame the corporations for wanting to profit off of warfare, but since they need the government to that, I blame the government first.
Your opinion is wrong. Any libertarian would say that no one could lock anyone inside a burning building, personal freedom and all that.
Yes libertarians consider the view that people should be in charge of their own lives, including how much safety they need and most of the other things.
Also any true libertarian is absolutely not against unions. They are for the separation of union and law though. Pretty big difference there.
In reality, you do not understand the libertarian position much at all.
1. it still needs all the libraries(whether jar or so/dll/whatever) in the right spots 2. lwjgl is native code, thus, it kind of loses a lot of that steam.
first definition - a political theory advocating state ownership of industry
So while regulations may not be complete socialism, they are in fact a small part of it. As they are definitely the government controlling an industry.
If they really wanted to help out the country that allowed them to make their fortunes
Have you ever taken the time to consider that by them getting rich, they already have? Or you've never benefited from facebook(even if you haven't, millions have).
That 'property' was built with the taxpayers money (given to the telecoms to build out infrastructure) thus it is technically public property.
So the government should be running the internet then? or wait, you say they gave it to the telecoms, thus it's the telecoms property, not public.
Because the incentive wasn't there and the legality of doing it wasn't certain due to people not knowing whether common carrier rules applied or not. Then the FCC reclassified broadband to NOT be title II, and things started to clarify and the incentives showed up. Now many ISPs have explicitly stated that they want to do this. Look at the recent situation with Comcast and Netflix. Or the previous situation with Comcast and torrents. AT&T and Verizon have both explicitly stated they want to be able to offer their services and make them faster than other services on the network. So the 'solution in search of a problem' rebuttal is just bullshit.
You know, it's perfectly legal for X company to charge you more for Y service. But you can make endless excuses as to why it hasn't happened. Yes I'm sure some will/have tried it.
Net neutrality goes against corporations, not for them. It says what ISPs are not allowed to do, not what the government is allowed to do.
That'll be ineffective and will stiffle potential innovation. And in 10 years, it will get more power. I mean the FDA is getting more power.. for nothing really. that can't happen with net neutrality, HAH.
Not all regulation is equal. There is good regulation and bad regulation.
Is there good regulation? yes, but it's few and far between. mostly it's regulation that jsut adds costs and slows people and progress down. Some of it is down right evil.
But don't worry, you will get your way. I have no doubt. And you'll regret it, when they demand your private keys or your passwords or instant access to your private data or whatever else is deemed necessary to protect people, or whatever stupid excuse there is.
Slashdot Mirror
The Internet was born from the government and has always existed under regulations
That's true, to an extent. But the reality is, the internet has been pretty much unregulated.
Making some changes to those regulations to ensure that the large ISPs that control the infrastructure don't start making moves to line their pockets at everyone else's expense, just because they can, is not a bad thing
It's a very bad thing. Just like price controls are bad. just like communism is bad. What is good, is this thing call freedom. Which means freedom for everyone, even those you don't like.
It's not giving the government more control over the Internet.
They get the power to enforce 'fairness', and that's not giving them power?
It's telling those ISPs that they don't have the right to implement their own regulations over what can be sent over the net and at what speeds, just to generate more revenue for themselves.
Why shouldn't they be able to? because you don't like it? I don't like the fact a porsche costs too much money, so let's regulate them too. And btw, where's teh great examples of this happening? we haven't had the internet long enough for it to happen?
So if some corporation wants to steal money from you, but some other department, wants to legit business, you're gonna do business with them? I imagine not, why would the government be any different?
Oh good, another slippery slope fallacy.
Oh, it's a fallacy? you think, if you hand them power they'll not demand more? are you serious? it's not a fallacy it's a fact. "The natural progress of things is liberty to yield and government gain ground" ~ Thomas Jefferson.
Well I'm not buying it. Net Neutrality is a worthy goal
freedom is worthy goal. Control is not. Doesn't matter that it's only control of people you don't like. (for now)
Nannies are generally useful, and sometimes they're hot too!
for children, sure. But I should not be forced into having a nanny to protect myself. I'm an adult.
Bureaucrats vary wildly in their usefulness, but generally perform tasks that need to be done.
Sure, some of their tasks need to be done, but the vast majority of it is just bullshit. If you don't agree, then you better get on explaining how the endless piles of laws is useful, when our constitution was a whole couple of pages long.
As for control, I'd actually prefer that it be balanced in the interest of preserving openness
This idea, of forcing freedom, i think is an oxymoron.
I obviously can't depend on them to preserve it.
as opposed to depending on the government who has enough trouble defending our first and second amendments.
They want to lock it down and monetize every possible avenue they can.
And if they keep providing me with a valueable service that i am willing to pay for, so what. BUt then, why haven't these things happened?
I don't advocate giving the government the power to micromanage the net, or to shut it down at will, but I do think that telling the ISPs what they can't do is a good idea
that's quite a contradiction in my eye. And what do you think will happen in a few years, when something else happens and the government wants more power? you think they'll jsut say, nah we can't do that? Nope, they'll just do it, after all it's for the good of the people.
You are wrong. It's most definitely regulation, by just about any definition. And forcing freedom is an oxymoron.
And you don't find those word scary? excluding clowns.
To be frank, how can you be so blind, when you have all this talk of the government wanting a kill switch? and you willing give them more power??? And look at what happened in egypt.
BTW, if corporations have been lying and committing fraud, we already have laws about that sort of thing.
FCC gets net neutrality, how long until they need to start policing the content? We already have enough of that bs to deal with. The net has been run by corporations for quite awhile, and there's no major problems with it, and you guys just jump for joy at the thought of giving more power to the government.
The FCC wants to regulate the corporations not the Internet.
why is it that on slashdot, with the talk of violation of civil liberties by the government, this general attitude about the FCC/net neutrality still exists? It's so sad that you guys who understand the value of civil liberties do not understand the government really is not pro individual or pro freedom. it's pro power. If the FCC had the power to regulate the internet and did so, and even assuming everything was as people wanted, how long do you think that would last? how long until we get the FCC spying to protect the children?
yeah, now why is it, you guys want net neutrality so badly?
Æ is extended ascii
Hey, all I care is copy/paste in Chrome seems to actually work!
Holy cow, you're right! so nice...
100-200 million people dead. because of three men basically. If you really think that compares with anything you listed, nothing I can say will convince you otherwise.
You can blame the corporations for wanting to profit off of warfare, but since they need the government to that, I blame the government first.
Who do you think killed more people in the last century?
Hitler, Mao, Stalin
or
GE, IBM, Walmart, Exxon, whoever else.
You must have either a fucked up sense of 'evil' or a distorted view of reality.
too bad they turned off public profiles.. but here
probably true.
Your opinion is wrong. Any libertarian would say that no one could lock anyone inside a burning building, personal freedom and all that.
Yes libertarians consider the view that people should be in charge of their own lives, including how much safety they need and most of the other things.
Also any true libertarian is absolutely not against unions. They are for the separation of union and law though. Pretty big difference there.
In reality, you do not understand the libertarian position much at all.
1. it still needs all the libraries(whether jar or so/dll/whatever) in the right spots
2. lwjgl is native code, thus, it kind of loses a lot of that steam.
You know what's scary? the fact that you don't realize how much better our lives are, because of exactly what you mock.
enough regulation and it is socialism. so they are not unrelated at all.
1. It's not for life.
2. You could say that about somethings, yes.
I like how i got modded down for providing a definition of a word. lol
i dunno where you get that from.
ownership
- The state of having complete legal control of the status of something
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=define:+socialism
first definition
- a political theory advocating state ownership of industry
So while regulations may not be complete socialism, they are in fact a small part of it. As they are definitely the government controlling an industry.
If they really wanted to help out the country that allowed them to make their fortunes
Have you ever taken the time to consider that by them getting rich, they already have? Or you've never benefited from facebook(even if you haven't, millions have).
That 'property' was built with the taxpayers money (given to the telecoms to build out infrastructure) thus it is technically public property.
So the government should be running the internet then? or wait, you say they gave it to the telecoms, thus it's the telecoms property, not public.
Because the incentive wasn't there and the legality of doing it wasn't certain due to people not knowing whether common carrier rules applied or not. Then the FCC reclassified broadband to NOT be title II, and things started to clarify and the incentives showed up. Now many ISPs have explicitly stated that they want to do this. Look at the recent situation with Comcast and Netflix. Or the previous situation with Comcast and torrents. AT&T and Verizon have both explicitly stated they want to be able to offer their services and make them faster than other services on the network. So the 'solution in search of a problem' rebuttal is just bullshit.
You know, it's perfectly legal for X company to charge you more for Y service. But you can make endless excuses as to why it hasn't happened. Yes I'm sure some will/have tried it.
Net neutrality goes against corporations, not for them. It says what ISPs are not allowed to do, not what the government is allowed to do.
That'll be ineffective and will stiffle potential innovation. And in 10 years, it will get more power. I mean the FDA is getting more power.. for nothing really. that can't happen with net neutrality, HAH.
Not all regulation is equal. There is good regulation and bad regulation.
Is there good regulation? yes, but it's few and far between. mostly it's regulation that jsut adds costs and slows people and progress down. Some of it is down right evil.
But don't worry, you will get your way. I have no doubt. And you'll regret it, when they demand your private keys or your passwords or instant access to your private data or whatever else is deemed necessary to protect people, or whatever stupid excuse there is.