You made that right up. There is no such thing as a right to know.
There is such a thing though, as the right to be free of illegal search and seizure. That's difference between Snowden and Manning. A big one.
Actually, as Americans we have many rights not enumerated in the constitution. That was one of the arguments against implementing the "Bill of Rights" at the dawn of our Republic. Many were concerned that if we enumerated specific rights, it would be assumed that those were all there were.
That is not the case. The US constitution limits the power of the Federal government. It does *not* restrict the rights of the citizens. In fact, the Ninth Amendment clearly spells that out: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
Associated Press -- September 17, 2014
In his latest interview, Linus Torvalds shocked the world with his pronouncement that "Cheerios are delicious! Wheaties taste like fucking crap!" When asked to comment, a spokesperson for General Mills stated "Linus is right. Except about the Wheaties." The AP will stay on top of this breaking news and continue to bring you the latest on CerealGate, as it happens.
If you classify ISP's as common carriers, the FCC will create a department or a sub-department to manage them. This department will get a budget, and that budget will have a mandatory yearly increase (This is how the government WORKS for EVERYTHING).
Once the basic job has been done, and the processes are in place - what will these people do? They will want to keep their jobs secure. This is how HUMANS function in organizational hierarchies. They will do this by creating new reasons for their existence, new things that need to be regulated, new systems that need to be put in place, new needs for more people to increase the fiefdom.
This is how absolutely everything in government works. Every time a new regulation is written... or a law is passed - this is what happens. This is exactly why we have a bloated Federal Government that's increasingly intrusive. It's do-gooders and well intentioned folks who fail to understand how this shit actually gets implemented that are the problem.
So create a straw man (Did I say that regulating ISP's was EVIL? I did not) - and call me names all you want. I'm telling you HOW this grand idea is actually going to WORK in something called THE REAL WORLD. Once you flip the switch and do this, you won't be able to go back... ever. You will have created a monster that will simply grow, and grow, and grow consuming as much wealth as it can.
So next you'll accuse me of not wanting to regulate anything, and you'll tell me I am against clean air and water, and if that doesn't work, then I am a racist. So boring, and so predictable it all is.
Please. Learn a little history. ISPs have historically been classified as common carriers. "Telecom" based ISPs still are. No organizational or regulation changes are required. Cable companies were exempted from this for a variety (many of which I disagreed with) of reasons which are no longer relevant.
In any case, I didn't call you any names, nor did I try to impugn your character or make any judgements about you as a person. I did (and do) disagree with your assertion that re-classifying *all* (as opposed to just some, which is currently the case) ISPs as common carriers would, necessarily, create some huge, money-sucking bureaucracy.
As I've repeatedly suggested, instead of making broad pronouncements which have minimal semantic value, how about addressing the issues and make some constructive suggestions, rather than asserting that I said things I did not.
Have a nice day, friend. I hope you and all those you care about are healthy, happy and fulfilled in their lives. May good fortune travel with you all of your days.
The problem is once you build the agency... that will regulate the ISP's... it's sole mission will quickly become one of continuing it's existence, and getting ever larger automatic budget increases every year. The way you do this is to create new "crisis's" that require more regulation, and more people to enforce the regulations.
You mean the FCC? No one is suggesting any new regulatory agencies, or even any new regulations. All anyone is asking for is that *all* ISPs (not just "telecom" companies -- a distinction which is less relevant every day) be re-classified as common carriers. Sigh.
This is exactly how we got into the mess we are in on the Federal level. Because after the cry "There ought to be a law" nobody ever thinks about what's going to happen five, ten, twenty years down the road.
Which new law is it, in this case, that you're saying there's an outcry to create? I am aware of no bills or proposed legislation in this regard. Perhaps I'm ignorant -- please educate me.
While you're at it, I suggest that before making your "unassailable" pronouncements about how evil it is to regulate ISPs as common carriers, you take a little time and learn about the history of the regulation of ISPs. I think you'll find that your dire predictions didn't happen in the past, and reclassification of *all* ISPs as common carriers is both appropriate and beneficial to the Internet and its users.
If you're unwilling to understand how things actually were and are, and instead make knee-jerk judgements about the appropriateness of *anything*, you'll often come to faulty conclusions.
> I agree. I've been running a similar set up on a PIII-100 (remember those?) with 96MB RAM and a 200MB disk for almost twenty years.
--Dude, how high is your electric bill? o_O
--If you hook up a kill-a-watt to that beast, you might want to consider replacing that ancient machine with something like a Raspberry Pi / Cubietruck / Atom box - it will likely pay for itself within a year due to the power savings...
TS-836A Plug Power Meter = ~$16 on Amazon
Just to clarify, it's actually a Pentium Pro-200, not a PIII-100.
My electric bill is between me and the electric company. Thanks for your concern, though.
That said, I appreciate the suggestion, but my bill is already bit lower since I got rid of the Dell PowerEdge 6400 I was running for many years. What is more, when it's hot in the summer, my AC unit uses more power than all the other electric devices in my house. If I was really concerned, I'd sweat more.:)
Compared to the AC and the other systems I run, my firewall's power usage is negligible. I guess it's just a matter of perspective, eh?
Although it's more like someone broke into your house and left you a gift you don't need.
While a nice thought the person shouldn't have broken into my house. They should've asked first.
Actually, it's more like you gave them the keys and said, "Come on in anytime you like, boys!" when enabling the auto-download feature. Whether or not they should have done it differently is a useful question, but (as you correctly pointed out) you have to enable auto-download manually. If someone did so and didn't realize that they were giving Apple carte blanche to rummage around in their device, that's thier mistake, not Apple's.
I'm not an Apple fan. I don't own any of their hardware, nor am I interested in purchasing any. I'm not even defending Apple's distribution choice in this case.
It just seems ridiculous to me that people are getting all mad at Apple about something that was in their control (again, as you and others have pointed out) all along.
Complaining about someone trying to do something nice for you (whether you want them too or not -- I guess you've never gotten a gift you didn't like -- as for not asking for it, the best gifts I've ever received were from people who just wanted to do something nice for me). It smacks of childish behavior, IMHO.
This is just awful! Someone gave you a gift. It's unconscionable! How dare anybody give you a gift! Especially one that you don't like. And you can't even re-gift it. Apple is the worst company in the world!
If you don't like the music, don't listen to it. If you don't like that Apple can push content to your device, don't use Apple devices
I guess that on your birthday, when a relative gives you a gift you don't like, you yell at them and demand that they take it back because it's beneath you, huh?
Are you all a bunch of six year olds? EWWW! Bono has cooties! His music is touching my music! WAAAAHHHH! Please.
And if you're complaining (somehow) about Apple violating the sanctity of your music collection, then don't use iTunes.
Let's be honest there is quite a bit of difference on a planet with 7 billion people to enact laws making procreation and child rearing a privilege and responsibility only for those appropriate to do so versus you can spit out all the ones you want expecting the rest of society to care for them and take responsibility for them, this versus extermination camps.
Suck it up, despite all the whining about how badly it was done in the past it will not ever stop all of us or future generations from biting the bullet, it is a matter of inevitability or total collapse from the 20 billion idiocracy taking over and an extinct species replacing them.
A whole lot of problems can be safely easily eliminated in a generation or three or we can continue to fail future generations with them.
Absolutely. Let's start with you. Seems reasonable to me. Do I hear a second?
This raises the question of why Comcast would care. For many years at least, the conventional wisdom among service providers and other carriers was that they'd prefer to NOT know what a customer uses the service for. If the ISP doesn't, and can't, know which sites customers are visiting, they can't be held responsible either legally or in regards to PR. I was shopping for a colo facility for the backup service I offer and the contract for one facility said "no porn". That was a definite deal-breaker for me - I most definitely do not want to look at what my customers are having backed up, and therefore become responsible for it. It would be a huge waste of my time to deal with any copyright violations, verify age reqirements, etc so the business is better off not know what the bits are. Just store the bits (or transfer them, in Comcast's case). That would save Comcast a bunch of money compared to monitoring and therefore needing to moderate the content.
My take is (regardless of the veracity of TFA) that Comcast has a vested interest in addressing "copyright violations" as their parent company owns a large stock of "intellectual property." If they can't tell whether or not you're "stealing" their IP because you're using TOR, they see that as taking food out of their mouths. Just sayin'.
Broadband Internet service needs to become a public non-profit utility, charged at a maximum of $39.95 a month for 50MB Upload and download speeds with NO data caps. And no disconnection unless you are CONVICTED of doing something illegal with/over your internet service.
I disagree. The last mile connections should be a public/quasi-public non-profit utility, with ISPs paying fees to the utility to connect to the last mile. They can then compete with each other on price and features (including speed).
I'll cut right to the chase. You allow the government to take over the ISP business, it will be regulated like in China. I'm very serious about that statement. Give it another 10 years-ish to boil that frog, but yes, that severe.
Please give me just one credible example where someone (anyone) is advocating that the "government take over the ISP business" in the US. It doesn't even have to be long and involved.
I'm not talking about the pervasive monitoring by the NSA, DOD and other government agencies. That's a different issue. A very important one that deserves our attention and needs to be fought vigoriously. But that shouldn't be diluted with some paranoid fantasy about the US government trying to nationalize ISPs.
So how much is Comcast paying you to say that? Internet service being classified as a common carrier can only be a good thing for customers but Comcast and their kind will do anything to fight that.
[Emphasis Added]
That's absurd on its face. "Anything" is a really broad term. "Comcast and their kind will murder babies in their cribs to fight Common Carrier status." "Comcast and their kind will enslave the residents of Teaneck, NJ to fight Common Carrier status." "Comcast and their kind will come to your house and force you to watch as they rape your daughters to fight Common Carrier status."
Why not use a bit less hyperbole and a little more constructive argument? How about, "Comcast is using its virtual monopoly status and huge resources to influence politicians, spread FUD and muddy the waters to fight common carrier status." That would be much more useful and might even suggest courses of action. Wasn't that easy?
This is what I thought of when reading your post:
I cannot overemphasize the importance of good grammar.
What a crock. I could easily overemphasize the importance of good
grammar. For example, I could say: "Bad grammar is the leading cause
of slow, painful death in North America," or "Without good grammar, the
United States would have lost World War II."
Anyone with any awareness of history AT ALL should not want a government controlled internet. If you want the Federal government to do anything maybe it should forcing ISPs like Comcast who have infrastructure that depends on granted monopoly rights easements and the like be operated as common carriers but you definitely don't want them any more involved than that!
[Emphasis Added]
That's regulation. So, it's not regulation you're against, it's the Federal government encroaching on your civil liberties. Not all regulation is bad, and common carrier status for all ISPs would be (it was at one time, and hopefully will again) a good regulation. I'd also point out that reclassifying ISPs (regardless of the type of infrastructure, e.g., cable vs. telecom) as common carriers is about the farthest the FCC *could* go. No one is asking them to do anything more than that.
I'm mad about government surveillance and attempts to throttle free speech and personal liberties too. But knee-jerk reactions aren't helpful at all. Sadly, we likely won't get common carrier status for all ISPs. What's worse is that the state/local/municipal politician sale will continue, with entrenched players having their lap dog politicians keep them safe from competition.
If a free and vibrant Internet is important to you, start with your local government. You and your neighbors have a much better chance to effect change there than at the Federal level
Television, in addition to carrying on the benefit of radio, shows students the world rather than simply referring to points on a map. Different cultures and environments can be described in full color with fluid video, rather than hoping the student understands a short text description that too often seems absurd due to its foreign context.
Yes, really. There's much more, but you can find that for yourself. No, it doesn't replace classroom learning, but it can be an excellent adjunct to it.
If this saved the life and virtue of even one child, then I have a hard time feeling like they did anything wrong.
Okay. So let's have all your passwords and full access to your home, office and other property to make sure you're not breaking any laws. What? You have nothing to hide? Good. So we can install audio and video monitoring devices in your car and your house, including the bedroom, bathroom, providing full 24/7 coverage. Nothing to worry about citizen, this is for your protection.
I can see that someone lied to you. That's probably a sign that a lot of people have and you believed them.
The trickle down theory simply purports that the best way to increase the condition of the poor is to improve the economy so they have more opportunities and a common theme in achieving this is to lower taxes in order to allow more capitol investment in areas that would improve the economy. Contrary to popular belief, lowing taxes across the board is simply just that. It is not a gift to the wealthy, it is not a foot on the back of the poor, it is lowering taxes and its impact generally ends in more investment that create more jobs. Yes, the rich get richer but that happens without it.
But be a good little liberal and don't believe me or bother thinking for yourself. I mean how many poor people have given you a job that you could live from? Some people simply have to have more money than others and if you take all of it from them, they will not be creating jobs. It is the factual economic reality we live in. Until such time the government mandates people will work somewhere and receive whatever pay they declare valid, we will have to rely on people with money creating jobs. Its really that simple to anyone but liberals and communists.
I've seen "supply-side" economics in action, and it doesn't work. Well, not for the neediest, at least. You can call me whatever names you want, but I'm neither a "liberal" nor a "communist." I find it amusing that you didn't seem to notice that overall employment and wages have stagnated or declined since the supply-siders started implementing their policies.
Hayek and Friedman were wrong. That's not to say that Keynes was right about everything either. Higher wages and progressive income (or, potentially even a VAT) taxes led to the largest economic expansion in history in the 25 years after WWII, That's history. Look at the data. I believe in evidence and data. It's quite refreshing. You ought to try it sometime. I'm not going to get into a protracted debate with someone who (apparently) is unwilling to change their mind when provided with data and logical reasoning.
I don't need others to tell me what to think or say. I do my own thinking and draw my own conclusions.
I tell you what, You keep on calling me names and believing whatever you want. I have no desire to bad-mouth you or your beliefs (even if I disagree), nor am I interested in evangelizing my own. You might consider that sometime.
What affects the 1%ers today will affect the 99%ers tomorrow. This was true for Electric Light and phones in cars, and will be true for imortality.
What about trickle down economics? While it has surely affected the 99-percenters, it was hardly in a positive way. Not everything that benefits the wealthy makes its way to the common person.
Trickle-Down Economics (n)
1. A (repeatedly) failed economic policy (sometimes referred to as Supply-Side) which posits that increasing wealth at the top of the socioeconomic ladder will increase wealth at all socioeconomic levels, i.e., the wealth will "trickle down" and raise everyone up.;
2. A poorly constructed lie stating that giving more to those who have the most will somehow make those with less (or nothing) better off;
3. Pissing on the poor;
Yes, you've forgotten your fucking manners. No reason to be a doooooooosh.
I assume that's meant to be humor. If not, I'm guessing you didn't take your medication today. Oh, and it's spelled 'douche'. Have a wonderful day, my rude, spelling-challenged friend.
That's awesome! I think my 386 came with a really large 40MB drive and I wanted so badly get a CDROM until I found out you still needed drive space to run the games on them. I only remember because that was really when I started to get into computers on my own. I was quite a hardware geek back in those days. I bought that p166 back in 1996 I think, and it was a really expensive rig looking at hardware nowadays.
Yeah. The leaps in performance and capacity have been so huge. I remember back in the late 80s (before IDE/ATA) how awesome it was to get an 80MB (RLL format vs 40MB MFM) disk for my PC XT. Ahh, the joys of INT13 calls under DOS 3.3:)
Except a PIII-100 did not exist. at 100mhz you would have been talking about a 486dx4 or a Pentium 100mhz machine. PIII ran from 450mhz-1.4ghz IIRC. However, if you are talking about bus speed, then yes, P3 did use a 100mhz-133mhz bus speed.
However, when talking about a P3 (or even Pentium 1), a 200mb hard drive would have been tiny. When I bought my Pentium 166mhz machine it came with a (pricey) 4.3gb scsi drive. I believe I even had a 500MB drive hooked up to my 386. And I sure did not have 96MB of RAM, more like 4MB.
Those were the days, just not quite like how you remember them...
You're right. I was incorrect. It's a Pentium Pro-200, not a PIII-100. And it's not about *remembering* It's right here, under my desk. Purchased new (Dell Dimension XPS) in 1995, IIRC.
$ cat cpuinfo
processor : 0
vendor_id : GenuineIntel
cpu family : 6
model : 1
model name : Pentium Pro
stepping : 9
cpu MHz : 199.434
You mean we can't have a check-box on the PC vendor's web page where we configure our device, which lists several operating systems?
You can. But people will freak out when that checkbox would say "Linux + $80". They would think "But Linux is free". While it is a free OS, the OEM wouldn't get subsidies from bloatware providers which help subsidies the cost of the computer.
But folks don't even have that choice. Where we are now is a product of many years under the restrictive MS OEM licenses, and a whole, bottom feeding ecosystem has developed to exploit it. That has done a great deal, IMHO, to limit the innovation and development of alternative OSes, both free and commercial. What is more, in the absence of the predatory MS OEM licensing, as time went by, those self-same bloatware vendors would subsidize other OS' as well.
That is a different issue.
I agree it is not good that Microsoft is allowed to create predatory OEM licensing agreements. I would be in favor of regulations that would prevent MS from making such contracts.
But it's not a different issue, IMHO. In the absence of such OEM licensing agreements, vendors could have provided entree for a variety of alternative OS' (including some which were never developed because of the MS OEM lock-in),
Slashdot Mirror
"... right to know?"
You made that right up. There is no such thing as a right to know.
There is such a thing though, as the right to be free of illegal search and seizure. That's difference between Snowden and Manning. A big one.
Actually, as Americans we have many rights not enumerated in the constitution. That was one of the arguments against implementing the "Bill of Rights" at the dawn of our Republic. Many were concerned that if we enumerated specific rights, it would be assumed that those were all there were.
That is not the case. The US constitution limits the power of the Federal government. It does *not* restrict the rights of the citizens. In fact, the Ninth Amendment clearly spells that out:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
Associated Press -- September 17, 2014
In his latest interview, Linus Torvalds shocked the world with his pronouncement that "Cheerios are delicious! Wheaties taste like fucking crap!" When asked to comment, a spokesperson for General Mills stated "Linus is right. Except about the Wheaties." The AP will stay on top of this breaking news and continue to bring you the latest on CerealGate, as it happens.
If you classify ISP's as common carriers, the FCC will create a department or a sub-department to manage them. This department will get a budget, and that budget will have a mandatory yearly increase (This is how the government WORKS for EVERYTHING). Once the basic job has been done, and the processes are in place - what will these people do? They will want to keep their jobs secure. This is how HUMANS function in organizational hierarchies. They will do this by creating new reasons for their existence, new things that need to be regulated, new systems that need to be put in place, new needs for more people to increase the fiefdom. This is how absolutely everything in government works. Every time a new regulation is written... or a law is passed - this is what happens. This is exactly why we have a bloated Federal Government that's increasingly intrusive. It's do-gooders and well intentioned folks who fail to understand how this shit actually gets implemented that are the problem. So create a straw man (Did I say that regulating ISP's was EVIL? I did not) - and call me names all you want. I'm telling you HOW this grand idea is actually going to WORK in something called THE REAL WORLD. Once you flip the switch and do this, you won't be able to go back... ever. You will have created a monster that will simply grow, and grow, and grow consuming as much wealth as it can. So next you'll accuse me of not wanting to regulate anything, and you'll tell me I am against clean air and water, and if that doesn't work, then I am a racist. So boring, and so predictable it all is.
Please. Learn a little history. ISPs have historically been classified as common carriers. "Telecom" based ISPs still are. No organizational or regulation changes are required. Cable companies were exempted from this for a variety (many of which I disagreed with) of reasons which are no longer relevant.
In any case, I didn't call you any names, nor did I try to impugn your character or make any judgements about you as a person. I did (and do) disagree with your assertion that re-classifying *all* (as opposed to just some, which is currently the case) ISPs as common carriers would, necessarily, create some huge, money-sucking bureaucracy.
As I've repeatedly suggested, instead of making broad pronouncements which have minimal semantic value, how about addressing the issues and make some constructive suggestions, rather than asserting that I said things I did not.
Have a nice day, friend. I hope you and all those you care about are healthy, happy and fulfilled in their lives. May good fortune travel with you all of your days.
The problem is once you build the agency... that will regulate the ISP's... it's sole mission will quickly become one of continuing it's existence, and getting ever larger automatic budget increases every year. The way you do this is to create new "crisis's" that require more regulation, and more people to enforce the regulations.
You mean the FCC? No one is suggesting any new regulatory agencies, or even any new regulations. All anyone is asking for is that *all* ISPs (not just "telecom" companies -- a distinction which is less relevant every day) be re-classified as common carriers. Sigh.
This is exactly how we got into the mess we are in on the Federal level. Because after the cry "There ought to be a law" nobody ever thinks about what's going to happen five, ten, twenty years down the road.
Which new law is it, in this case, that you're saying there's an outcry to create? I am aware of no bills or proposed legislation in this regard. Perhaps I'm ignorant -- please educate me.
While you're at it, I suggest that before making your "unassailable" pronouncements about how evil it is to regulate ISPs as common carriers, you take a little time and learn about the history of the regulation of ISPs. I think you'll find that your dire predictions didn't happen in the past, and reclassification of *all* ISPs as common carriers is both appropriate and beneficial to the Internet and its users.
If you're unwilling to understand how things actually were and are, and instead make knee-jerk judgements about the appropriateness of *anything*, you'll often come to faulty conclusions.
> I agree. I've been running a similar set up on a PIII-100 (remember those?) with 96MB RAM and a 200MB disk for almost twenty years.
--Dude, how high is your electric bill? o_O
--If you hook up a kill-a-watt to that beast, you might want to consider replacing that ancient machine with something like a Raspberry Pi / Cubietruck / Atom box - it will likely pay for itself within a year due to the power savings...
TS-836A Plug Power Meter = ~$16 on Amazon
Just to clarify, it's actually a Pentium Pro-200, not a PIII-100.
My electric bill is between me and the electric company. Thanks for your concern, though.
That said, I appreciate the suggestion, but my bill is already bit lower since I got rid of the Dell PowerEdge 6400 I was running for many years. What is more, when it's hot in the summer, my AC unit uses more power than all the other electric devices in my house. If I was really concerned, I'd sweat more. :)
Compared to the AC and the other systems I run, my firewall's power usage is negligible. I guess it's just a matter of perspective, eh?
Although it's more like someone broke into your house and left you a gift you don't need.
While a nice thought the person shouldn't have broken into my house. They should've asked first.
Actually, it's more like you gave them the keys and said, "Come on in anytime you like, boys!" when enabling the auto-download feature. Whether or not they should have done it differently is a useful question, but (as you correctly pointed out) you have to enable auto-download manually. If someone did so and didn't realize that they were giving Apple carte blanche to rummage around in their device, that's thier mistake, not Apple's.
I'm not an Apple fan. I don't own any of their hardware, nor am I interested in purchasing any. I'm not even defending Apple's distribution choice in this case.
It just seems ridiculous to me that people are getting all mad at Apple about something that was in their control (again, as you and others have pointed out) all along.
Complaining about someone trying to do something nice for you (whether you want them too or not -- I guess you've never gotten a gift you didn't like -- as for not asking for it, the best gifts I've ever received were from people who just wanted to do something nice for me). It smacks of childish behavior, IMHO.
Modded insightful because you think making music isn't real work? Idiots, all of them. I wonder what you consider real work?
Complaining about ridiculous bullshit on /. That's real work!
This is just awful! Someone gave you a gift. It's unconscionable! How dare anybody give you a gift! Especially one that you don't like. And you can't even re-gift it. Apple is the worst company in the world!
If you don't like the music, don't listen to it. If you don't like that Apple can push content to your device, don't use Apple devices
I guess that on your birthday, when a relative gives you a gift you don't like, you yell at them and demand that they take it back because it's beneath you, huh?
Are you all a bunch of six year olds? EWWW! Bono has cooties! His music is touching my music! WAAAAHHHH! Please.
And if you're complaining (somehow) about Apple violating the sanctity of your music collection, then don't use iTunes.
Sigh.
Let's be honest there is quite a bit of difference on a planet with 7 billion people to enact laws making procreation and child rearing a privilege and responsibility only for those appropriate to do so versus you can spit out all the ones you want expecting the rest of society to care for them and take responsibility for them, this versus extermination camps.
Suck it up, despite all the whining about how badly it was done in the past it will not ever stop all of us or future generations from biting the bullet, it is a matter of inevitability or total collapse from the 20 billion idiocracy taking over and an extinct species replacing them.
A whole lot of problems can be safely easily eliminated in a generation or three or we can continue to fail future generations with them.
Absolutely. Let's start with you. Seems reasonable to me. Do I hear a second?
This raises the question of why Comcast would care. For many years at least, the conventional wisdom among service providers and other carriers was that they'd prefer to NOT know what a customer uses the service for. If the ISP doesn't, and can't, know which sites customers are visiting, they can't be held responsible either legally or in regards to PR. I was shopping for a colo facility for the backup service I offer and the contract for one facility said "no porn". That was a definite deal-breaker for me - I most definitely do not want to look at what my customers are having backed up, and therefore become responsible for it. It would be a huge waste of my time to deal with any copyright violations, verify age reqirements, etc so the business is better off not know what the bits are. Just store the bits (or transfer them, in Comcast's case). That would save Comcast a bunch of money compared to monitoring and therefore needing to moderate the content.
My take is (regardless of the veracity of TFA) that Comcast has a vested interest in addressing "copyright violations" as their parent company owns a large stock of "intellectual property." If they can't tell whether or not you're "stealing" their IP because you're using TOR, they see that as taking food out of their mouths. Just sayin'.
TROLL.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
Broadband Internet service needs to become a public non-profit utility, charged at a maximum of $39.95 a month for 50MB Upload and download speeds with NO data caps. And no disconnection unless you are CONVICTED of doing something illegal with/over your internet service.
I disagree. The last mile connections should be a public/quasi-public non-profit utility, with ISPs paying fees to the utility to connect to the last mile. They can then compete with each other on price and features (including speed).
I'll cut right to the chase. You allow the government to take over the ISP business, it will be regulated like in China. I'm very serious about that statement. Give it another 10 years-ish to boil that frog, but yes, that severe.
Please give me just one credible example where someone (anyone) is advocating that the "government take over the ISP business" in the US. It doesn't even have to be long and involved.
I'm not talking about the pervasive monitoring by the NSA, DOD and other government agencies. That's a different issue. A very important one that deserves our attention and needs to be fought vigoriously. But that shouldn't be diluted with some paranoid fantasy about the US government trying to nationalize ISPs.
Please. Just one real example. Thought so.
So how much is Comcast paying you to say that? Internet service being classified as a common carrier can only be a good thing for customers but Comcast and their kind will do anything to fight that.
[Emphasis Added]
That's absurd on its face. "Anything" is a really broad term. "Comcast and their kind will murder babies in their cribs to fight Common Carrier status." "Comcast and their kind will enslave the residents of Teaneck, NJ to fight Common Carrier status." "Comcast and their kind will come to your house and force you to watch as they rape your daughters to fight Common Carrier status."
Why not use a bit less hyperbole and a little more constructive argument? How about, "Comcast is using its virtual monopoly status and huge resources to influence politicians, spread FUD and muddy the waters to fight common carrier status." That would be much more useful and might even suggest courses of action. Wasn't that easy?
This is what I thought of when reading your post:
-- Dave Barry,
Anyone with any awareness of history AT ALL should not want a government controlled internet. If you want the Federal government to do anything maybe it should forcing ISPs like Comcast who have infrastructure that depends on granted monopoly rights easements and the like be operated as common carriers but you definitely don't want them any more involved than that!
[Emphasis Added]
That's regulation. So, it's not regulation you're against, it's the Federal government encroaching on your civil liberties. Not all regulation is bad, and common carrier status for all ISPs would be (it was at one time, and hopefully will again) a good regulation. I'd also point out that reclassifying ISPs (regardless of the type of infrastructure, e.g., cable vs. telecom) as common carriers is about the farthest the FCC *could* go. No one is asking them to do anything more than that.
I'm mad about government surveillance and attempts to throttle free speech and personal liberties too. But knee-jerk reactions aren't helpful at all. Sadly, we likely won't get common carrier status for all ISPs. What's worse is that the state/local/municipal politician sale will continue, with entrenched players having their lap dog politicians keep them safe from competition.
If a free and vibrant Internet is important to you, start with your local government. You and your neighbors have a much better chance to effect change there than at the Federal level
Television, in addition to carrying on the benefit of radio, shows students the world rather than simply referring to points on a map. Different cultures and environments can be described in full color with fluid video, rather than hoping the student understands a short text description that too often seems absurd due to its foreign context.
Really?
Yes, really. There's much more, but you can find that for yourself. No, it doesn't replace classroom learning, but it can be an excellent adjunct to it.
In other news, a spokesman for gun maker Smith & Wesson said today that "gun ranges are the classrooms of the future." Film at eleven.
If this saved the life and virtue of even one child, then I have a hard time feeling like they did anything wrong.
Okay. So let's have all your passwords and full access to your home, office and other property to make sure you're not breaking any laws. What? You have nothing to hide? Good. So we can install audio and video monitoring devices in your car and your house, including the bedroom, bathroom, providing full 24/7 coverage. Nothing to worry about citizen, this is for your protection.
I can see that someone lied to you. That's probably a sign that a lot of people have and you believed them.
The trickle down theory simply purports that the best way to increase the condition of the poor is to improve the economy so they have more opportunities and a common theme in achieving this is to lower taxes in order to allow more capitol investment in areas that would improve the economy. Contrary to popular belief, lowing taxes across the board is simply just that. It is not a gift to the wealthy, it is not a foot on the back of the poor, it is lowering taxes and its impact generally ends in more investment that create more jobs. Yes, the rich get richer but that happens without it.
But be a good little liberal and don't believe me or bother thinking for yourself. I mean how many poor people have given you a job that you could live from? Some people simply have to have more money than others and if you take all of it from them, they will not be creating jobs. It is the factual economic reality we live in. Until such time the government mandates people will work somewhere and receive whatever pay they declare valid, we will have to rely on people with money creating jobs. Its really that simple to anyone but liberals and communists.
I've seen "supply-side" economics in action, and it doesn't work. Well, not for the neediest, at least. You can call me whatever names you want, but I'm neither a "liberal" nor a "communist." I find it amusing that you didn't seem to notice that overall employment and wages have stagnated or declined since the supply-siders started implementing their policies.
Hayek and Friedman were wrong. That's not to say that Keynes was right about everything either. Higher wages and progressive income (or, potentially even a VAT) taxes led to the largest economic expansion in history in the 25 years after WWII, That's history. Look at the data. I believe in evidence and data. It's quite refreshing. You ought to try it sometime. I'm not going to get into a protracted debate with someone who (apparently) is unwilling to change their mind when provided with data and logical reasoning.
I don't need others to tell me what to think or say. I do my own thinking and draw my own conclusions.
I tell you what, You keep on calling me names and believing whatever you want. I have no desire to bad-mouth you or your beliefs (even if I disagree), nor am I interested in evangelizing my own. You might consider that sometime.
In any case, have a nice day!
What affects the 1%ers today will affect the 99%ers tomorrow. This was true for Electric Light and phones in cars, and will be true for imortality.
What about trickle down economics? While it has surely affected the 99-percenters, it was hardly in a positive way. Not everything that benefits the wealthy makes its way to the common person.
Trickle-Down Economics (n)
1. A (repeatedly) failed economic policy (sometimes referred to as Supply-Side) which posits that increasing wealth at the top of the socioeconomic ladder will increase wealth at all socioeconomic levels, i.e., the wealth will "trickle down" and raise everyone up.;
2. A poorly constructed lie stating that giving more to those who have the most will somehow make those with less (or nothing) better off;
3. Pissing on the poor;
Yes, you've forgotten your fucking manners. No reason to be a doooooooosh.
I assume that's meant to be humor. If not, I'm guessing you didn't take your medication today. Oh, and it's spelled 'douche'. Have a wonderful day, my rude, spelling-challenged friend.
That's awesome! I think my 386 came with a really large 40MB drive and I wanted so badly get a CDROM until I found out you still needed drive space to run the games on them. I only remember because that was really when I started to get into computers on my own. I was quite a hardware geek back in those days. I bought that p166 back in 1996 I think, and it was a really expensive rig looking at hardware nowadays.
Yeah. The leaps in performance and capacity have been so huge. I remember back in the late 80s (before IDE/ATA) how awesome it was to get an 80MB (RLL format vs 40MB MFM) disk for my PC XT. Ahh, the joys of INT13 calls under DOS 3.3 :)
Except a PIII-100 did not exist. at 100mhz you would have been talking about a 486dx4 or a Pentium 100mhz machine. PIII ran from 450mhz-1.4ghz IIRC. However, if you are talking about bus speed, then yes, P3 did use a 100mhz-133mhz bus speed. However, when talking about a P3 (or even Pentium 1), a 200mb hard drive would have been tiny. When I bought my Pentium 166mhz machine it came with a (pricey) 4.3gb scsi drive. I believe I even had a 500MB drive hooked up to my 386. And I sure did not have 96MB of RAM, more like 4MB. Those were the days, just not quite like how you remember them...
You're right. I was incorrect. It's a Pentium Pro-200, not a PIII-100. And it's not about *remembering* It's right here, under my desk. Purchased new (Dell Dimension XPS) in 1995, IIRC.
/proc/meminfo
$ cat cpuinfo
processor : 0
vendor_id : GenuineIntel
cpu family : 6
model : 1
model name : Pentium Pro
stepping : 9
cpu MHz : 199.434
$ cat
total: used: free: shared: buffers: cached:
Mem: 96964608 94928896 2035712 0 3387392 13291520
Is there anything else I'm not "remembering" from way back then, Huck?
You mean we can't have a check-box on the PC vendor's web page where we configure our device, which lists several operating systems?
You can. But people will freak out when that checkbox would say "Linux + $80". They would think "But Linux is free". While it is a free OS, the OEM wouldn't get subsidies from bloatware providers which help subsidies the cost of the computer.
But folks don't even have that choice. Where we are now is a product of many years under the restrictive MS OEM licenses, and a whole, bottom feeding ecosystem has developed to exploit it. That has done a great deal, IMHO, to limit the innovation and development of alternative OSes, both free and commercial. What is more, in the absence of the predatory MS OEM licensing, as time went by, those self-same bloatware vendors would subsidize other OS' as well.
That is a different issue. I agree it is not good that Microsoft is allowed to create predatory OEM licensing agreements. I would be in favor of regulations that would prevent MS from making such contracts.
But it's not a different issue, IMHO. In the absence of such OEM licensing agreements, vendors could have provided entree for a variety of alternative OS' (including some which were never developed because of the MS OEM lock-in),