When the course list says, "Staff" instead of a professor, luck factors in heavily here.
I would say the opposite. If you get a professor, they have tenure and don't give a shit if students appeal grades. If you get academic staff, they have to grade you as accurately and objectively as they possibly can, because if they mess up their job is potentially on the line.
You have the powerful monopolies because they are colluding with the powerful government.
Yeah, because one company could never buy all the {mines|oil wells|railroads|telephone lines|radio stations} serving a given market on its own, using money. That's never happened in the history of monopolies. It's always the big, bad government.
The difference is that I actually trust big corporations to honor their contractual obligations.
Why? They have a fairly abysmal track record.
At least if a corporation violates them, I can sue for breach of contract.
If you have the stamina to wait years, possibly decades, not to mention the money to pay lawyers for all that time and the time to take off work for court appearances, et cetera. Good luck with that. You may still lose on account of having an inferior lawyer, even after all that waiting and even if your case is solid.
If Congress violates my rights, my option is to break the new law and take my chances with the courts eventually overturning the bad law.
Pray tell, what right of yours could be violated by a network neutrality regulation? Your right to extort your customers?
For this commodity, there simply isn't a free market.
While I don't necessarily disagree with you, I'd simply like to point out that accepting the FCC as the authority on this topic essentially guarantees that there never will be such a market, even if/when technology allows it.
I'm unconvinced that the problems we face are so severe as to inflict such a bureaucracy upon our grandchildren.
Yeah, it really sucks that the FCC stepped in and now there's only one national television network, only one telephone carrier and only one radio station in every town...man, they really shut down the competitive marketplace.
Let's take his airline analogy for example. Yes people can pay more to ride the business class / first class seats. That is the Internet equivalent of buying a wider pipe that has better customer support and uptime guarantee. The seat availability is still based on first come first serve basis. To violate net neutrality in airline terms means you can literally pay the airline to kick somebody off the plane and give their seat to you.
I like your analogy, but I think I can offer a slightly more accurate one. To violate airline neutrality means someone can literally pay the airline to kick you off the plane until you pay a ransom to be let back on the plane.
In other industries, this is called a protection racket, or maybe extortion, and any way you slice it is a crime. But when it comes to the internet, we're supposed to believe keeping the government's hands off things is in our best interests.
I favor "open access" over net neutrality. Open access means telecom providers have to allow other ISPs to use their infrastructure. In fact, I would really prefer de-integrating (disintegrating?) telecom service from telecom infrastructure. I would have no problem with comcast, shitty company that it is, owning half of the cable infrastructure in the US, if all of the content services were run by competing companies.
I think you're a bit confused. Get back to me when you figure out the difference between ISPs and content providers.
As a life-long atheist who's had many more "libertarians" try to cram religion down my throat than government agencies, I personally find this hard to swallow.
People want to have net neutrality, but giving the FEC the power to regulate will only lead to more problems in the future.
Like....what exactly? I don't think I've heard a single example of a specific problem this would actually cause, other than the vague bogeyman of "more government regulation! grrrr!"
Oh, and it's the FCC, by the way. The FEC oversees elections.
On digg, it's all up or down. You'll frequently see comments like "**** Republicans!" rated very highly. Whether or not you agree with Republican political views, putting four asterisks before their party name adds nothing to the discussion.
But at least they're being polite. I would have filled in letters.
I'm not sure I'd call it organized but it seems pretty suspicious that the rational science loving audience that frequents slashdot would crank up the denier rhetoric so consistently.
Ah! You assume that slashdot is frequented by a rational, science-loving audience. Fool!
It's even an issue here at Slashdot, too. If you suggest that xkcd isn't a funny comic strip, you'll catch a whole load of shit, and your comment will be at "-1, Troll" before you know it.
Someone's a bit sore, eh? I've never seen that happen. I have seen spurious downward mods, but any anti-XKCD troll I've seen was a legit troll, and any criticism of XKCD I've seen which had, you know, actual thought put into it and a reason for criticizing XKCD got modded up. So next time, try being a bit wittier, say something of value, and odds are you won't get hit with "Troll" even if you slaughter a sacred cow.
"...the tea party is nothing but a group of griefers" Sure. Yeah. Right. Just keep telling yourself that!
If the middle left were judged by similar standards, they'd all be branded as the bomb-throwing lunatics we see rioting when the WTO meets.
Guess it all depends on your notion of where the center is, eh?
No. It depends on how willing you are to generalize. Very few leftist are bomb-throwers, and very few riot at WTO meetings, both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of leftists. Tea Partiers, on the other, seem to be a majority of "griefers" with a small core of rational beings capable of serious thought. I say this based on extensive experience with Tea Partiers, including having lengthy discussions with them and attending some of their ralliles.
Slashdot Mirror
When the course list says, "Staff" instead of a professor, luck factors in heavily here.
I would say the opposite. If you get a professor, they have tenure and don't give a shit if students appeal grades. If you get academic staff, they have to grade you as accurately and objectively as they possibly can, because if they mess up their job is potentially on the line.
for keeping our electricity rates down.
Not to mention, keeping ENRON in check...
You have the powerful monopolies because they are colluding with the powerful government.
Yeah, because one company could never buy all the {mines|oil wells|railroads|telephone lines|radio stations} serving a given market on its own, using money. That's never happened in the history of monopolies. It's always the big, bad government.
They wouldn't exactly own the pipes anymore if they couldn't decide what flowed through them.
Clearly you are having some trouble with the adult concepts on this site. I refer you to Webster's for the definition of interest, sir.
But when those barriers to entry are induced by the government, your suggestion would be MORE government interference?
Since when is the finite supply of coal or the expense of digging a mine shaft induced by the government?
The difference is that I actually trust big corporations to honor their contractual obligations.
Why? They have a fairly abysmal track record.
At least if a corporation violates them, I can sue for breach of contract.
If you have the stamina to wait years, possibly decades, not to mention the money to pay lawyers for all that time and the time to take off work for court appearances, et cetera. Good luck with that. You may still lose on account of having an inferior lawyer, even after all that waiting and even if your case is solid.
If Congress violates my rights, my option is to break the new law and take my chances with the courts eventually overturning the bad law.
Pray tell, what right of yours could be violated by a network neutrality regulation? Your right to extort your customers?
This is probably the most intelligent thing I've ever heard on the NN debate.
For this commodity, there simply isn't a free market.
While I don't necessarily disagree with you, I'd simply like to point out that accepting the FCC as the authority on this topic essentially guarantees that there never will be such a market, even if/when technology allows it.
I'm unconvinced that the problems we face are so severe as to inflict such a bureaucracy upon our grandchildren.
Yeah, it really sucks that the FCC stepped in and now there's only one national television network, only one telephone carrier and only one radio station in every town...man, they really shut down the competitive marketplace.
Never had any BMV problems, myself.
I have. Gives me the shits. But mmmmm...bacon, mutton and veal...
Let's take his airline analogy for example. Yes people can pay more to ride the business class / first class seats. That is the Internet equivalent of buying a wider pipe that has better customer support and uptime guarantee. The seat availability is still based on first come first serve basis. To violate net neutrality in airline terms means you can literally pay the airline to kick somebody off the plane and give their seat to you.
I like your analogy, but I think I can offer a slightly more accurate one. To violate airline neutrality means someone can literally pay the airline to kick you off the plane until you pay a ransom to be let back on the plane.
In other industries, this is called a protection racket, or maybe extortion, and any way you slice it is a crime. But when it comes to the internet, we're supposed to believe keeping the government's hands off things is in our best interests.
I favor "open access" over net neutrality. Open access means telecom providers have to allow other ISPs to use their infrastructure. In fact, I would really prefer de-integrating (disintegrating?) telecom service from telecom infrastructure. I would have no problem with comcast, shitty company that it is, owning half of the cable infrastructure in the US, if all of the content services were run by competing companies.
I think you're a bit confused. Get back to me when you figure out the difference between ISPs and content providers.
no packets that contain atheist sentiments, etc.
As a life-long atheist who's had many more "libertarians" try to cram religion down my throat than government agencies, I personally find this hard to swallow.
Yeah, remember when we gave our government the power to abolish slavery? God, that sucked for individual freedom!
People want to have net neutrality, but giving the FEC the power to regulate will only lead to more problems in the future.
Like....what exactly? I don't think I've heard a single example of a specific problem this would actually cause, other than the vague bogeyman of "more government regulation! grrrr!"
Oh, and it's the FCC, by the way. The FEC oversees elections.
But what makes you so certain the free market won't sort things out, when by your own admission it has so far done just that?
Because the corporate players in question have clearly stated their intention to break it?
Leave it to the OP on /. to feign knowledge of statistics while having none.
Shut up and die.
Wow. Awesome comeback, man. I stand in awe of your wit and clear superiority.
Maybe sometime you can teach me to be as cool as you.
On digg, it's all up or down. You'll frequently see comments like "**** Republicans!" rated very highly. Whether or not you agree with Republican political views, putting four asterisks before their party name adds nothing to the discussion.
But at least they're being polite. I would have filled in letters.
Palin is a MILF!
Actually a GILF
A GILF is automatically, by definition, also a MILF.
I'm not sure I'd call it organized but it seems pretty suspicious that the rational science loving audience that frequents slashdot would crank up the denier rhetoric so consistently.
Ah! You assume that slashdot is frequented by a rational, science-loving audience. Fool!
I only use yelp to browse my system documentation. That's about all it's really good for.
It's even an issue here at Slashdot, too. If you suggest that xkcd isn't a funny comic strip, you'll catch a whole load of shit, and your comment will be at "-1, Troll" before you know it.
Someone's a bit sore, eh? I've never seen that happen. I have seen spurious downward mods, but any anti-XKCD troll I've seen was a legit troll, and any criticism of XKCD I've seen which had, you know, actual thought put into it and a reason for criticizing XKCD got modded up. So next time, try being a bit wittier, say something of value, and odds are you won't get hit with "Troll" even if you slaughter a sacred cow.
"...the tea party is nothing but a group of griefers" Sure. Yeah. Right. Just keep telling yourself that!
If the middle left were judged by similar standards, they'd all be branded as the bomb-throwing lunatics we see rioting when the WTO meets.
Guess it all depends on your notion of where the center is, eh?
No. It depends on how willing you are to generalize. Very few leftist are bomb-throwers, and very few riot at WTO meetings, both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of leftists. Tea Partiers, on the other, seem to be a majority of "griefers" with a small core of rational beings capable of serious thought. I say this based on extensive experience with Tea Partiers, including having lengthy discussions with them and attending some of their ralliles.
So, crazies: get an education, enjoy your free health care and stop being racist--it's so 60 years ago.
Because if anything's going to make crazy people become sane, it's ordering them to become sane.
I wasn't aware Lyndon Johnson was a secessionist. Then again, he was from Texas...