My point wasn't about advantages, it was about being able to forge connections that were near-impossible to do only two decades prior.
Well, regardless who is doing it, the ability for easy convenient global communications is still a good thing, right? Because when I saw this, "It's one thing to have a 30-member Klan Klavern in your town. It's another thing entirely when you can co-ordinate with thousands of white supremacists all over the globe."*, I am curious if a "solution" is being implied...
That is a shame. The non-voting bloc is a large majority. They could, on their own, replace all the incumbents with independents. The failure to sweep the house every two years is on the voters and non-voters alike.
Tiered bandwidth is one thing. Tiered content is quite different, and that is what needs to be fought and what net-neutrality is supposed to prevent. All filtering is to be done at the customers' end, not the ISP's. They are there to sell access to the pipe, not what's in it.
What's this "compliance" crap you're talking about? The ISP is supposed to sell bandwidth, not tell you which channel you can watch. And in the present day closed markets of exclusivity we need laws that prohibit any prioritization of specific traffic. The ISP should be seen and regulated as a public utility, at least until the market can be pried open where anybody can put up a server without violating some monopolistic ISP's TOS
As much as you hate the idea, we can use the government as our voice when we have no real economic clout.
Wrong again! The small company can't open up shop because the big company has an exclusive statewide franchise.
And another point further down: If you're neutral about it, then 95% of your bandwidth goes towards providing services for two or three huge corporate media companies
Wrong again again! All your bandwidth goes to whatever your customers are downloading. Unless of course you are prioritizing BigCo traffic in violation of what would be a neutral network.
It appears you are confusing the content provider with the service provider. The content providers are allowed to discriminate as they wish. The service providers are not. They must remain neutral, totally passive to the content passing through their pipe. All their routers should be replaced with switches, and the users can shape their own traffic. Theoretically, in a truly open market of service providers, regulation would hardly be necessary, but what we frequency have are state protected local franchises carving up territory, and we must demand that they provide us with a dumb pipe if they want to keep that relationship, otherwise allow muni/state ISPs. If the state won't do it, the feds have to step in. It's not "socialism" if the buyers were to use their vote to assert their rights and set the rules.
:-) They weren't leftists. Calling them so is like North Korea calling itself a "democratic republic". Leftism is always in opposition to authority, by definition. Leftism is cooperative, not coercive.
They just make up the losses somewhere else. They suffer nothing, certainly not a good night's sleep. In fact, this way the CEO can give a nice cushy job to his lazy, good for nothing brother-in-law, so his wife will quit nagging at him. Like it or not, our only chance of fixing this is with our vote for people that will turn the ISP into a public utility that answers to the public. A stroke of the pen, and done.
You can't distinguish democrats from republicans in this business. Both serve Comcast et al. If they didn't, all those companies will send their contributions elsewhere. That's how shit works. Your partisanship is totally irrelevant and serves as mere distraction to sidestep fundamental issues.
So you've read up plenty, and have concluded that people like Larry Page or Sergey Brin or Jeff Bezos or Obama golf-buddy Brian Roberts or Hillary supporter Lowell McAdam are all right wingers.
No, they're just regular rich people with shared common interests. You're the one carrying this identity crisis of yours.
You keep on guessing, but you're always guessing wrong. Your head is filled with mass media garbage. And all you come up with is confused gibberish.
Already have read up plenty. And it doesn't validate any of the propaganda you puke up. I know exactly why the election went the way it did. It's obvious to anybody who isn't so tribal that they take sides. Liberalism is dead. The facade you want to see as such is a personal problem of your own, unrelated to physical reality. Politics in the US goes from center right to lunatic right. There certainly is no "left" of any significance. What looks "left" to you is, in reality, a perverse distraction created by your lunatic right. And for that, I have to admit a job well done.
Unfortunately the legislation trends are going towards more restrictions. Remember how DRM killed the minidisc. And we can't buy full band scanners anymore to protect the cell phone industry from public snooping. And HDMI? oh well.. no passive cables for you
Sorry, but curiosity and learning and tinkering are no longer approved activities. In fact they are seen as suspicious. Don't get caught drawing a schematic diagram or writing math on a napkin in public.
You are simply wrong. You haven't named a single thing that makes them "liberal". Being anti-competitive or siding with democrats is not in any fashion "liberal". You give me nothing to deny. You only repeat mass media propaganda. You only give opinion, not facts.
Oh please! Shirley you're not serious. Find me a billionaire who actually believes that! Bezoz is his target... This is animal instinct. The only thing on their mind is "more"...
Slashdot Mirror
My point wasn't about advantages, it was about being able to forge connections that were near-impossible to do only two decades prior.
Well, regardless who is doing it, the ability for easy convenient global communications is still a good thing, right? Because when I saw this, "It's one thing to have a 30-member Klan Klavern in your town. It's another thing entirely when you can co-ordinate with thousands of white supremacists all over the globe."*, I am curious if a "solution" is being implied...
What you call a "closed Ecosystem" others might call "All Inclusive". Many people don't want to have to deal with third party add ons.
That is a shame. The non-voting bloc is a large majority. They could, on their own, replace all the incumbents with independents. The failure to sweep the house every two years is on the voters and non-voters alike.
Tiered bandwidth is one thing. Tiered content is quite different, and that is what needs to be fought and what net-neutrality is supposed to prevent. All filtering is to be done at the customers' end, not the ISP's. They are there to sell access to the pipe, not what's in it.
Is Global Warming real?
Everybody else better sleep with one eye open. We're the expendables.
What's this "compliance" crap you're talking about? The ISP is supposed to sell bandwidth, not tell you which channel you can watch. And in the present day closed markets of exclusivity we need laws that prohibit any prioritization of specific traffic. The ISP should be seen and regulated as a public utility, at least until the market can be pried open where anybody can put up a server without violating some monopolistic ISP's TOS
As much as you hate the idea, we can use the government as our voice when we have no real economic clout.
Wrong again! The small company can't open up shop because the big company has an exclusive statewide franchise.
And another point further down:
If you're neutral about it, then 95% of your bandwidth goes towards providing services for two or three huge corporate media companies
Wrong again again! All your bandwidth goes to whatever your customers are downloading. Unless of course you are prioritizing BigCo traffic in violation of what would be a neutral network.
The voters don't care, and if they can't be bothered, how do you think anything is going to change?
You're funny... Again, those people aren't "leftist". They are provocateurs. Leftists have no desire for authority, only to destroy it.
It appears you are confusing the content provider with the service provider. The content providers are allowed to discriminate as they wish. The service providers are not. They must remain neutral, totally passive to the content passing through their pipe. All their routers should be replaced with switches, and the users can shape their own traffic. Theoretically, in a truly open market of service providers, regulation would hardly be necessary, but what we frequency have are state protected local franchises carving up territory, and we must demand that they provide us with a dumb pipe if they want to keep that relationship, otherwise allow muni/state ISPs. If the state won't do it, the feds have to step in. It's not "socialism" if the buyers were to use their vote to assert their rights and set the rules.
:-) They weren't leftists. Calling them so is like North Korea calling itself a "democratic republic". Leftism is always in opposition to authority, by definition. Leftism is cooperative, not coercive.
Guess we just have to do more nuke/solar/wind/wave energy.
As for "efficiency", let's find a measure of human effort required to build and fuel the machine. Using financial units distorts the picture too much.
I seem to recall that if a plane loses power, you're pretty screwed anyway.
Not really. It only means you are going to land short of your destination.
They just make up the losses somewhere else. They suffer nothing, certainly not a good night's sleep. In fact, this way the CEO can give a nice cushy job to his lazy, good for nothing brother-in-law, so his wife will quit nagging at him. Like it or not, our only chance of fixing this is with our vote for people that will turn the ISP into a public utility that answers to the public. A stroke of the pen, and done.
You can't distinguish democrats from republicans in this business. Both serve Comcast et al. If they didn't, all those companies will send their contributions elsewhere. That's how shit works. Your partisanship is totally irrelevant and serves as mere distraction to sidestep fundamental issues.
So you've read up plenty, and have concluded that people like Larry Page or Sergey Brin or Jeff Bezos or Obama golf-buddy Brian Roberts or Hillary supporter Lowell McAdam are all right wingers.
No, they're just regular rich people with shared common interests. You're the one carrying this identity crisis of yours.
You keep on guessing, but you're always guessing wrong. Your head is filled with mass media garbage. And all you come up with is confused gibberish.
Already have read up plenty. And it doesn't validate any of the propaganda you puke up. I know exactly why the election went the way it did. It's obvious to anybody who isn't so tribal that they take sides. Liberalism is dead. The facade you want to see as such is a personal problem of your own, unrelated to physical reality. Politics in the US goes from center right to lunatic right. There certainly is no "left" of any significance. What looks "left" to you is, in reality, a perverse distraction created by your lunatic right. And for that, I have to admit a job well done.
"beware of Greeks bearing gifts"?
Can we still say that on the internet?
"Do Not Disturb" does have a scheduling switch. I think you have to turn it on.
Unfortunately the legislation trends are going towards more restrictions. Remember how DRM killed the minidisc. And we can't buy full band scanners anymore to protect the cell phone industry from public snooping. And HDMI? oh well.. no passive cables for you
Sorry, but curiosity and learning and tinkering are no longer approved activities. In fact they are seen as suspicious. Don't get caught drawing a schematic diagram or writing math on a napkin in public.
You are simply wrong. You haven't named a single thing that makes them "liberal". Being anti-competitive or siding with democrats is not in any fashion "liberal". You give me nothing to deny. You only repeat mass media propaganda. You only give opinion, not facts.
So what does "make the bastards pay" have anything to do with this then? The "bastards" are being paid..
There is nothing notably "liberal" about any of those companies. That is a fantasy of your favorite media outlets.
Oh please! Shirley you're not serious. Find me a billionaire who actually believes that! Bezoz is his target... This is animal instinct. The only thing on their mind is "more"...