I quite agree with Rakishi. This is likely so because we have similar understandings of the diffuse and loaded phrase "net neutrality."
I do wonder, though, about the example of VOIP. Sooner or later most ISPs will end up giving higher priority to voice packets. Should the VOIP providers pay more for the use of prime resources? Should the non-VOIP user pay the penalty in slightly slower packets at peak times?
This seems to me one of the many occasions in which we need more and better data to have a worthwhile discussion. If this was one comment on one day made in the context of "I believe that . .," the fuss is in my humble opinion a bit much. Many teachers have strongly held beliefs and many express them. All teachers are from time-to-time guilty of bad judgment.
If this were not the Bush administration, I would tend to accept this PR/News Spin unit as business as usual. In our political system voter opinion still does matter and all branches and levels of government labor hard to make the news come out their way. That may, of course, change when the right wing Republicans get better at stealing votes.
Since this is, alas, still the Bush administration, we can only consider this another bunch of liars who will lie without caring how many of our men and women die in Iraq and how heavy the debt will be for all.
With considerable respect for those helping the children who most need it, I suggest the best approach here would be to start all over from the beginning, taking no action until the right questions are well answered. These questions would include:
1) For meeting exactly what student needs do we suspect a computer would be the tool of choice? 2)What do we want to happen when a student is sitting in front of that screen? 3) How will we determine whether what is happening in front of the screen is beneficial to students?
Once those questions are resolved, tools can be selected.
I run an ISP. From my perspective, our customers are already paying us for the service they receive. If we wish to make more money, we earn it by offering more and/or improved services at a higher price. If we were to generate outside cash by making some packets more equal than others, we should rightly suffer the consequences. Our customers, however, not the government, should (and would) be imposing the penalties.
On the scale of the (we own your data) AT$Ts, however, customer revolts are more readily contained. The proven ability of the telecommunications industry to prosper at the expense of the customer does make neutrality legislation attractive. Until, of course, the AT$T legislative army manages to make net neutrality equal whatever they may please.
Speaking for my bright, beautiful, and creative who works in computer science . . . whoa, that would be a very bad idea. Reload.
My humble guess is that our daughter would have great fun and make excellent contributions working on GNOME-related projects. She is, however, working such long hours in her development job that her free time already keeps approaching zero.
Sitting here with many millions of dollars worth of open source code at my disposal, I often wish there were good ways to compensate the many thousands of people who make it all happen.
The use of paper ballots offers advantages over any electronic system.
Paper ballots encourage traditional vote stealing, keeping us in touch with our history. The counting of paper ballots can be very slow, providing grist for the 24-hour news cycle. Paper ballots must be protected, providing security work for those who might otherwise be unemployed.
For those of us who enjoy (at least the illusion of) paying our own way or appreciate the (relative) independence of (primarily) user-supported programming, this is pretty easy. To the extent that we appreciate our local NPR station and can afford to support it, we money up the money. To the extent we also appreciate other NPR outlets who many provide programming and delivery mechanisms we prefer, we pony up there too.
Slashdot Mirror
I quite agree with Rakishi. This is likely so because we have similar understandings of the diffuse and loaded phrase "net neutrality."
I do wonder, though, about the example of VOIP. Sooner or later most ISPs will end up giving higher priority to voice packets. Should the VOIP providers pay more for the use of prime resources? Should the non-VOIP user pay the penalty in slightly slower packets at peak times?
Thanks for giving me one more reason to continue leaning forward into the notebook screen rather than buying new glasses or a bigger screen.
This seems to me one of the many occasions in which we need more and better data to have a worthwhile discussion. If this was one comment on one day made in the context of "I believe that . . ," the fuss is in my humble opinion a bit much. Many teachers have strongly held beliefs and many express them. All teachers are from time-to-time guilty of bad judgment.
If this were not the Bush administration, I would tend to accept this PR/News Spin unit as business as usual. In our political system voter opinion still does matter and all branches and levels of government labor hard to make the news come out their way. That may, of course, change when the right wing Republicans get better at stealing votes.
Since this is, alas, still the Bush administration, we can only consider this another bunch of liars who will lie without caring how many of our men and women die in Iraq and how heavy the debt will be for all.
1) For meeting exactly what student needs do we suspect a computer would be the tool of choice? 2)What do we want to happen when a student is sitting in front of that screen? 3) How will we determine whether what is happening in front of the screen is beneficial to students?
Once those questions are resolved, tools can be selected.
I run an ISP. From my perspective, our customers are already paying us for the service they receive. If we wish to make more money, we earn it by offering more and/or improved services at a higher price. If we were to generate outside cash by making some packets more equal than others, we should rightly suffer the consequences. Our customers, however, not the government, should (and would) be imposing the penalties.
On the scale of the (we own your data) AT$Ts, however, customer revolts are more readily contained. The proven ability of the telecommunications industry to prosper at the expense of the customer does make neutrality legislation attractive. Until, of course, the AT$T legislative army manages to make net neutrality equal whatever they may please.
My humble guess is that our daughter would have great fun and make excellent contributions working on GNOME-related projects. She is, however, working such long hours in her development job that her free time already keeps approaching zero.
Sitting here with many millions of dollars worth of open source code at my disposal, I often wish there were good ways to compensate the many thousands of people who make it all happen.
The use of paper ballots offers advantages over any electronic system.
Paper ballots encourage traditional vote stealing, keeping us in touch with our history. The counting of paper ballots can be very slow, providing grist for the 24-hour news cycle. Paper ballots must be protected, providing security work for those who might otherwise be unemployed.
For those of us who enjoy (at least the illusion of) paying our own way or appreciate the (relative) independence of (primarily) user-supported programming, this is pretty easy. To the extent that we appreciate our local NPR station and can afford to support it, we money up the money. To the extent we also appreciate other NPR outlets who many provide programming and delivery mechanisms we prefer, we pony up there too.
ditto at this newspaper