Yes, nobody's going to fight to redefine marriage. Just like nobody fought 50 years ago to ensure that a couple of mixed race could marry. Because "marriage" is defined as the union of a white, land-owning man and a white, barefoot and pregnant woman and it will always remain that way.
On an unrelated matter, would someone please pass the mop, I seemed to have dripped sarcasm all over the place.
As soon as gays and lesbians can have children without scientific intervention, they can get married, until then, they can be lovers/friends/partners, but not married - that is reserved by definition for couples that can, under normal circumstances, conceive children for the survival of the human race.
No offense, but this is one of the flimsiest arguments against gay marriage. My wife's widowed grandmother is in her late 80's. She's DEFINITELY past her child bearing years. Suppose she met some nice elderly man and they decided to get married. Should that be illegal because that marriage is not going to produce kids? What about couples who know in advance that one or both can't have kids? What if a couple discovers this after they wed? Is their marriage null and void if they don't produce kids within a certain number of years? What about couples who decide not to have kids?
I fail to see how a gay couple employing "scientific intervention" to have kids is any different from a heterosexual couple who employs similar methods to have children. For that matter, what if a gay couple adopts? How would that be different from a hetereosexual couple adopting because they couldn't have kids of their own?
All religions have this built into their mantra some place or another.
Setting aside that some religions might be ok with gay marriage (or that "all religions" likely was meant to read as "all flavors of Christianity"), what does this matter? Since when do we set laws purely on the basis of "these religions say do X so we need to make that the law"? Should we now teach creationism in science class and have students in public school pray to Jesus because most religions (in those areas) say so?
nothing the state does gives a true marriage
Ah, the "only religious marriage is real marriage" argument. So if a couple goes to the justice of the peace, signs a marriage license (NOTE: not a "civil union marriage") and gets married, they aren't "really" married? Do all religions get to perform real marriages or is it only select ones? Is my Jewish marriage ok or do I need to go to an approved church, and proclaim devotion to Jesus before I can be really married? What about my Wiccan friends? Are they really just fooling themselves that they are married?
Just because something the majority does offends a minority, doesn't mean the minority gets to offend the majority.
Actually, the minority has the same rights to offend the majority as vice versa. To declare otherwise would be to say that the majority has more free speech rights than the minority. (I realize this can be the case in practice, but it shouldn't be and those are instances of injustice, not of rights being properly respected.)
The First Amendment says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Note that, although it says "Congress", this has been interpreted to apply to state governments as well. In addition, note that it doesn't say "abridging the freedome of speech of the majority" or "prohibiting the free exercise of the majority." It applies to everyone. So if a government puts a religious monument out, they must be prepared to put a similar one out for any other religion that wants one. Yes, even Satanists and no the size of the group doesn't matter. In a similar manner, if a government somehow succeeded in mandating the teaching Christian creationism in science class, they'd open the door to teaching Wiccan creationism, Buddist creationism, Satanist creationism, etc as well.
You do not have the right "Not to be offended"
On this we agree. Of course, by this I mean that the Christians don't have the right to say "We're fine with the 10 Commandments there, but want to block some Satanist monument because it offends our religion."
Hey, NSA. All that spam online? Those are coded messages from terrorists. So fill your databases with them, wipe them from all other areas of the Internet (to prevent the terrorists from communicating) and Keep America Safe!
Back in the Warcraft 2 days, I'd type in "It Is A Good Day To Die" and suddenly my orcs would be invulnerable. One lowly peon would be able to topple an entire human city in short order. Who knew that I was training to be a terrorist? Thankfully, I've veered off that path or who knows what other horrible actions that game could led me to commit!
And that's one of the big problems. A small group stops vaccinating and says "See? We didn't give our kids the MMR and they didn't get measles. It's perfectly safe to refuse the MMR!" So a few more people stop vaccinating having bought into the whole "vaccines carry huge risks" garbage and not seeing any immediate risk to stopping vaccinations. By the time we hit the tipping point and disease begins to spread, the anti-vaccination movement has enough momentum to push on and spin the outbreak as not being their fault for some reason - or worse, as proof that vaccines don't work - despite the fact that they are the ones who caused it.
I have a friend whose son, Sam, is dying of leukemia. He's gone into remission and then relapsed multiple times. This time they tried various treatments, but nothing worked. The doctors finally said there's nothing they can do. He's going to die. Sam is only 7 years old. Can you imagine having to tell your seven year old that they are going to die soon? As a parent, that's something I hope to NEVER have to do and something that I hope no parent ever has to tell their child again.
Here's my friend's blog if you want to read more about Sam: http://supermansamuel.blogspot.com/
Because he didn't disclose this. If you disclose a conflict of interest, people can take it into account when they are listening to your argument. However, if you hide the fact that you stand to make a lot of money if your "study" is accepted because you already have an alternative ready to be marketed, it leads people to think the possibility of monetary gain might have led you to alter your study to come to the "right" conclusion.
Exactly. Even if some study came out tomorrow proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that Autism was caused by vaccines (and leaving out the fact that such a study would require a LOT of double and triple checking before it would be accepted), I'd still support the use of vaccines. Better to have a live child with autism then a neurotypical child who dies of measles, whooping cough, polio, etc.
We're not actually certain the mice had autism: they simply displayed symptoms that scientists concluded were autistic.
That was what stood out to me. They noticed that the mice weren't as social, but they don't know WHY. I can't personally speak for the lower-functioning end of the Autism spectrum, but on the high functioning end (i.e. Asperger's Syndrome), the autistic individual WANTS very much to socialize, but literally doesn't know how. They can figure out how and "emulate" neurotypical enough to carry on conversations, but this is taxing on them and they can't keep it up forever without needing time to decompress. Like how an emulated application never runs as fast as a native application. Neurotypicals run "socializing" as a native app. Aspies emulate it (with varying degrees of success).
Add in the fact that Aspies can be so afraid of making a mistake while "emulating neurotypical" (possibly insulting someone) that it is easier and safer to just not interact at all. To the outside world, it looks like Aspies just are anti-social and would rather be left alone.
So maybe the mice really did want to socialize with other mice but didn't know the mouse social protocols that other mice knew instinctively. Or maybe there was another reason for their lack of socialization. At most, this might lead to treatments that remove some stumbling blocks which prevent autistic individuals from functioning in the neurotypical world. Not all stumbling blocks, but some of them. If it's a treatment that helps autistic individuals, great. If some woo folks grab onto this and start claiming to be able to "cure" autism by following their woo diet, very bad.
The "disease-like spread" of autism is a myth. What's really happening is that detection is getting better and better. Decades ago, you'd classify a child as "just shy" or "anti-social" or "odd ducks" and write them off (or try helping them but fail). If the child was far enough on the Autism spectrum, the child would be locked up and never spoken of again. (The family's "dirty little secret" of little Johnny who is kept locked up in his house and never allowed to interact with anyone else because nobody can get him to stop flapping his arms.) However, as we can better spot the signs of autism and as the stigma disappears (little Johnny is no longer locked up and never spoken of), the "rates" climb.
Actually, Autism is a developmental disorder. For example, my son with Asperger's Syndrome/High Functioning Autism is ten years old. Socially, though, he's about six. (Coincidentally, the same age as his younger, neurotypical brother.) Intellectually, though, he's about 12 so teaching him can be very challenging. He'll grasp concepts quickly, get bored, and engage in socially inappropriate behaviors that someone years younger than he is would consider funny. (Thankfully, many of his peers understand about his Autism. Wish I could say the same about all of his teachers.)
I think the need to label it as coming from Vaccines/antibiotics/whatever also comes from the lack of control parents feel as well. Their child isn't developing "normally" and, if it is genetics, they would have been unable to have stopped or prevented this. If the problem is that vaccines (or some other completely unproven factor) is to blame then if they only did X or didn't do Y, their kid would be "normal" and they can "help" other parents by advocating for/against that thing.
There's a post going around social media (that I refuse to link to) called "How I gave my child autism" where the author blames herself for all of the things she did which "gave" her child autism from ultrasounds to vaccines to having a C-Section. The level of woo in that post is very high as the author seems determined to make Jenny McCarthy look scientific in nature.
In my case, we got the diagnosis on Asperger's Syndrome/High Functioning Autism on our oldest son after years of trying to figure out what was going on with him. As we read book after book on Asperger's Syndrome, I realized these books were describing me as well. I haven't been diagnosed mainly because 1) it costs money we can't afford to spend, and 2) my diagnosis won't help my son at all. Still, I'm convinced that I have Asperger's Syndrome and "gave" it to my son via genetics. (Yes, I went through a period of feeling guilty for this even though I knew intellectually that this wasn't something where there was blame to assign.)
On the subject of the gut bacteria issue, my guess is that discomfort from the gut bacteria problem exacerbates autism symptoms. Treating the gut bacteria issue doesn't cure autism, but does reduce discomfort which lets people with autism cope with the neurotypical world better. To neurotypicals, this looks like autism is being cured when it's just being "hidden" better.
And, of course, Wakefield had his own MMR-replacement vaccine that he wanted to bring to market. So if he could prove that the MMR wasn't safe, he could swoop in, market his replacement, and make a lot of money. Of course, the anti-vax folks (and Wakefield himself) like to ignore this piece and accept Wakefield as being completely anti-vaccine.
Didn't you hear? She cured her son's autism using a gluten-free diet and some other nonsense that you can probably read about in her book. Yes, Playboy Model cures a developmental disorder that scientists don't even have a complete understanding for yet. She must be a genius!
[end sarcasm]
(Disclaimer: Both my son and I have Asperger's Syndrome/High Functioning Autism and claims that someone is going to "cure" me or my son are just insulting. A treatment to alleviate symptoms for the folks on the "low functioning" end of the spectrum maybe, but curing someone implies that there's something wrong with that person and I don't see Autism as "wrong", just as a different way of thinking - one that happens to come in very handy at times.)
And stencil your Cobalt-60 canister "Delicious cupcakes." You know, all this stenciling is making me hungry. I could sure go for some delicious cupcakes.... Uh oh.
I'm sure the airlines have legal fine print that basically states "We can refuse to let you board for any reason we think of and not refund your money at all." If you call the credit card company, they'll refer to this and deny it. Even if you get them to accept it, the airline can let loose their attack lawyers to either ruin your credit score or bog you down in a lawsuit (or both).
What they're talking about isn't "we'll put packets of this type ahead of packets of that type in our priority listings." It's "we'll slow down packets from video providers unless they pay us for faster packet delivery... while selling our own video services which aren't slowed down at all ever."
Actually Quality of Service prioritizing is important. As long as letting Video Packet A ahead of E-mail Packet B doesn't result in someone noticing that their e-mail is running too slow, it shouldn't be a problem. (It's a lot easier to notice that your video is buffering too much than that your e-mail is too slow.)
The problem comes into play when the ISPs say "video packets from Company A will be slow unless they pay us for Speedy Delivery... oh, and our own video packets get to use the Super Speedy Delivery service."
In addition, Netflix already paid THEIR ISP to get the best possible transmission. Their ISP negotiated with their upstream provider and so on to the top. Peering agreements between the top level providers ensure the data flows between them properly. Then the data flows back down the system on the other side with ISPs paying upstream providers and finally subscribers paying their ISPs. Everyone is getting paid by the people servicing them. What these greedy ISPs want is a slice of the profits that Netflix is making while at the same time seeking a reason to kill off Netflix in favor of their own video services.
1) Netflix is competing against the cable ISPs' own video services. The Cable ISPs would like nothing more than to cut off service to Netflix or slow it down to such a point that it becomes unusable. This would mean (in their minds) more people going to their services and more profit. They have a financial incentive and the technological capability to sabotage Netflix. The FCC, for all it's pro-business stance, has been about the only thing holding them back from doing this blatantly. If the FCC says "go ahead, this is fine" then Internet Video is as good as dead.
2) But won't people just run to other services, you ask. I'd answer: What other services? In my area, I have a choice of Time Warner Cable and that's about it. There is still Verizon DSL, but they've shown that they want to get rid of that as quickly as possible. My only other real option is a mobile connection, but that's hideously expensive for the types of uses I pay Time Warner Cable for. (You do NOT want to stream 4 Netflix shows every day over your 4G connection!!!) Many other people are in similar situations.
So if an ISP blocks or slows down Netflix, our options (as consumers) is pretty much grumble and continue to send checks to the ISPs or have no Internet access at all. No competition = no incentive to actually focus on the customers. Meanwhile, Netflix has a decent amount of competition. If Amazon pays the protection money to ISPs and Netflix doesn't, Amazon wins and Netflix loses. Netflix is in a dominant position now, but we all know (as do they) that this can change quickly.
Exactly. Managing packets to make sure that your customers get the best possible service is one thing. (Slowing e-mail packets slightly since that won't be noticed as much as a video slowdown, for example.) Turning around and saying "That's a nice video service you have there. Too bad it's going to slow to a crawl unless you pay us some protection money." just stinks of extortion. (Even if the X makes it sound cool.)
Meaning the ISPs are too cowardly to actually charge the *users* of said bandwidth, i.e., their customers. They would rather try to foist that charge off on another party with whom they have no business relationship and to whom are not providing any service, and have that other party deal with the bad PR.
That's part of it. The other part is that ISPs are greedy and see companies making lots of money online. What's worse: Some of these companies are competing against the ISPs' own video solutions which - until now - have had monopoly or near-monopoly control of the area. Even worse: These companies aren't providing payments to these ISPs at all. So the ISPs think: If these companies are making money across our "pipes", why don't we get paid for it? Then they demand the ability to charge companies for making money on "their pipes."
Of course, those of us who don't have our brains tainted by greed realize that consumers are paying for their connections and the companies are paying for theirs. The ISPs don't have a right to get paid by a company solely on the basis of "they're making money off of our users" any more than a phone company can charge a pizza place for making money by that phone company's users calling in pizza orders.
Perjury isn't a crime if a big corporation does it. Just like if you infringe copyright then you're an evil, artist killing individual. If a corporation steals your copyrighted image/photo/etc and uses it for their own purposes, at most they just need to say "oops" and toss some token payment your way. Corporations are people and all people are created equal, but some people are more equal than others.
Exactly. Sadly, American politicians have fallen in love with standardized tests as a measure to "make sure teachers are teaching our kids well enough." So they mandate a bunch of tests (which funnels money to Pearson and other big educational companies/campaign contributors) and tie those test scores to the teachers' jobs. The result: Teaching to the test and ONLY teaching what is on the test. If it's not on the test, then the teacher is essentially risking their job teaching the kids that as it takes away from valuable test prep time.
Having two kids in NY elementary schools, we know this all too well. Thankfully, we also know we can refuse the tests. Unfortunately, now politicians are pushing back against people who refuse the tests saying things like the kids will still be given the tests against the parents' wishes. Some have even gone so far as to insinuate that parents who refuse the tests will get a visit from Child Protective Services. (Because protecting your child from abusive tests which don't benefit their education in any way is apparently considered child abuse now.)
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, nobody's going to fight to redefine marriage. Just like nobody fought 50 years ago to ensure that a couple of mixed race could marry. Because "marriage" is defined as the union of a white, land-owning man and a white, barefoot and pregnant woman and it will always remain that way.
On an unrelated matter, would someone please pass the mop, I seemed to have dripped sarcasm all over the place.
No offense, but this is one of the flimsiest arguments against gay marriage. My wife's widowed grandmother is in her late 80's. She's DEFINITELY past her child bearing years. Suppose she met some nice elderly man and they decided to get married. Should that be illegal because that marriage is not going to produce kids? What about couples who know in advance that one or both can't have kids? What if a couple discovers this after they wed? Is their marriage null and void if they don't produce kids within a certain number of years? What about couples who decide not to have kids?
I fail to see how a gay couple employing "scientific intervention" to have kids is any different from a heterosexual couple who employs similar methods to have children. For that matter, what if a gay couple adopts? How would that be different from a hetereosexual couple adopting because they couldn't have kids of their own?
Setting aside that some religions might be ok with gay marriage (or that "all religions" likely was meant to read as "all flavors of Christianity"), what does this matter? Since when do we set laws purely on the basis of "these religions say do X so we need to make that the law"? Should we now teach creationism in science class and have students in public school pray to Jesus because most religions (in those areas) say so?
Ah, the "only religious marriage is real marriage" argument. So if a couple goes to the justice of the peace, signs a marriage license (NOTE: not a "civil union marriage") and gets married, they aren't "really" married? Do all religions get to perform real marriages or is it only select ones? Is my Jewish marriage ok or do I need to go to an approved church, and proclaim devotion to Jesus before I can be really married? What about my Wiccan friends? Are they really just fooling themselves that they are married?
Actually, the minority has the same rights to offend the majority as vice versa. To declare otherwise would be to say that the majority has more free speech rights than the minority. (I realize this can be the case in practice, but it shouldn't be and those are instances of injustice, not of rights being properly respected.)
The First Amendment says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Note that, although it says "Congress", this has been interpreted to apply to state governments as well. In addition, note that it doesn't say "abridging the freedome of speech of the majority" or "prohibiting the free exercise of the majority." It applies to everyone. So if a government puts a religious monument out, they must be prepared to put a similar one out for any other religion that wants one. Yes, even Satanists and no the size of the group doesn't matter. In a similar manner, if a government somehow succeeded in mandating the teaching Christian creationism in science class, they'd open the door to teaching Wiccan creationism, Buddist creationism, Satanist creationism, etc as well.
On this we agree. Of course, by this I mean that the Christians don't have the right to say "We're fine with the 10 Commandments there, but want to block some Satanist monument because it offends our religion."
Maybe we can make this work for us:
Hey, NSA. All that spam online? Those are coded messages from terrorists. So fill your databases with them, wipe them from all other areas of the Internet (to prevent the terrorists from communicating) and Keep America Safe!
Back in the Warcraft 2 days, I'd type in "It Is A Good Day To Die" and suddenly my orcs would be invulnerable. One lowly peon would be able to topple an entire human city in short order. Who knew that I was training to be a terrorist? Thankfully, I've veered off that path or who knows what other horrible actions that game could led me to commit!
And that's one of the big problems. A small group stops vaccinating and says "See? We didn't give our kids the MMR and they didn't get measles. It's perfectly safe to refuse the MMR!" So a few more people stop vaccinating having bought into the whole "vaccines carry huge risks" garbage and not seeing any immediate risk to stopping vaccinations. By the time we hit the tipping point and disease begins to spread, the anti-vaccination movement has enough momentum to push on and spin the outbreak as not being their fault for some reason - or worse, as proof that vaccines don't work - despite the fact that they are the ones who caused it.
I have a friend whose son, Sam, is dying of leukemia. He's gone into remission and then relapsed multiple times. This time they tried various treatments, but nothing worked. The doctors finally said there's nothing they can do. He's going to die. Sam is only 7 years old. Can you imagine having to tell your seven year old that they are going to die soon? As a parent, that's something I hope to NEVER have to do and something that I hope no parent ever has to tell their child again.
Here's my friend's blog if you want to read more about Sam: http://supermansamuel.blogspot.com/
Because he didn't disclose this. If you disclose a conflict of interest, people can take it into account when they are listening to your argument. However, if you hide the fact that you stand to make a lot of money if your "study" is accepted because you already have an alternative ready to be marketed, it leads people to think the possibility of monetary gain might have led you to alter your study to come to the "right" conclusion.
Exactly. Even if some study came out tomorrow proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that Autism was caused by vaccines (and leaving out the fact that such a study would require a LOT of double and triple checking before it would be accepted), I'd still support the use of vaccines. Better to have a live child with autism then a neurotypical child who dies of measles, whooping cough, polio, etc.
That was what stood out to me. They noticed that the mice weren't as social, but they don't know WHY. I can't personally speak for the lower-functioning end of the Autism spectrum, but on the high functioning end (i.e. Asperger's Syndrome), the autistic individual WANTS very much to socialize, but literally doesn't know how. They can figure out how and "emulate" neurotypical enough to carry on conversations, but this is taxing on them and they can't keep it up forever without needing time to decompress. Like how an emulated application never runs as fast as a native application. Neurotypicals run "socializing" as a native app. Aspies emulate it (with varying degrees of success).
Add in the fact that Aspies can be so afraid of making a mistake while "emulating neurotypical" (possibly insulting someone) that it is easier and safer to just not interact at all. To the outside world, it looks like Aspies just are anti-social and would rather be left alone.
So maybe the mice really did want to socialize with other mice but didn't know the mouse social protocols that other mice knew instinctively. Or maybe there was another reason for their lack of socialization. At most, this might lead to treatments that remove some stumbling blocks which prevent autistic individuals from functioning in the neurotypical world. Not all stumbling blocks, but some of them. If it's a treatment that helps autistic individuals, great. If some woo folks grab onto this and start claiming to be able to "cure" autism by following their woo diet, very bad.
The "disease-like spread" of autism is a myth. What's really happening is that detection is getting better and better. Decades ago, you'd classify a child as "just shy" or "anti-social" or "odd ducks" and write them off (or try helping them but fail). If the child was far enough on the Autism spectrum, the child would be locked up and never spoken of again. (The family's "dirty little secret" of little Johnny who is kept locked up in his house and never allowed to interact with anyone else because nobody can get him to stop flapping his arms.) However, as we can better spot the signs of autism and as the stigma disappears (little Johnny is no longer locked up and never spoken of), the "rates" climb.
Actually, Autism is a developmental disorder. For example, my son with Asperger's Syndrome/High Functioning Autism is ten years old. Socially, though, he's about six. (Coincidentally, the same age as his younger, neurotypical brother.) Intellectually, though, he's about 12 so teaching him can be very challenging. He'll grasp concepts quickly, get bored, and engage in socially inappropriate behaviors that someone years younger than he is would consider funny. (Thankfully, many of his peers understand about his Autism. Wish I could say the same about all of his teachers.)
I think the need to label it as coming from Vaccines/antibiotics/whatever also comes from the lack of control parents feel as well. Their child isn't developing "normally" and, if it is genetics, they would have been unable to have stopped or prevented this. If the problem is that vaccines (or some other completely unproven factor) is to blame then if they only did X or didn't do Y, their kid would be "normal" and they can "help" other parents by advocating for/against that thing.
There's a post going around social media (that I refuse to link to) called "How I gave my child autism" where the author blames herself for all of the things she did which "gave" her child autism from ultrasounds to vaccines to having a C-Section. The level of woo in that post is very high as the author seems determined to make Jenny McCarthy look scientific in nature.
In my case, we got the diagnosis on Asperger's Syndrome/High Functioning Autism on our oldest son after years of trying to figure out what was going on with him. As we read book after book on Asperger's Syndrome, I realized these books were describing me as well. I haven't been diagnosed mainly because 1) it costs money we can't afford to spend, and 2) my diagnosis won't help my son at all. Still, I'm convinced that I have Asperger's Syndrome and "gave" it to my son via genetics. (Yes, I went through a period of feeling guilty for this even though I knew intellectually that this wasn't something where there was blame to assign.)
On the subject of the gut bacteria issue, my guess is that discomfort from the gut bacteria problem exacerbates autism symptoms. Treating the gut bacteria issue doesn't cure autism, but does reduce discomfort which lets people with autism cope with the neurotypical world better. To neurotypicals, this looks like autism is being cured when it's just being "hidden" better.
And, of course, Wakefield had his own MMR-replacement vaccine that he wanted to bring to market. So if he could prove that the MMR wasn't safe, he could swoop in, market his replacement, and make a lot of money. Of course, the anti-vax folks (and Wakefield himself) like to ignore this piece and accept Wakefield as being completely anti-vaccine.
Didn't you hear? She cured her son's autism using a gluten-free diet and some other nonsense that you can probably read about in her book. Yes, Playboy Model cures a developmental disorder that scientists don't even have a complete understanding for yet. She must be a genius!
[end sarcasm]
(Disclaimer: Both my son and I have Asperger's Syndrome/High Functioning Autism and claims that someone is going to "cure" me or my son are just insulting. A treatment to alleviate symptoms for the folks on the "low functioning" end of the spectrum maybe, but curing someone implies that there's something wrong with that person and I don't see Autism as "wrong", just as a different way of thinking - one that happens to come in very handy at times.)
And stencil your Cobalt-60 canister "Delicious cupcakes." You know, all this stenciling is making me hungry. I could sure go for some delicious cupcakes.... Uh oh.
I'm sure the airlines have legal fine print that basically states "We can refuse to let you board for any reason we think of and not refund your money at all." If you call the credit card company, they'll refer to this and deny it. Even if you get them to accept it, the airline can let loose their attack lawyers to either ruin your credit score or bog you down in a lawsuit (or both).
What they're talking about isn't "we'll put packets of this type ahead of packets of that type in our priority listings." It's "we'll slow down packets from video providers unless they pay us for faster packet delivery... while selling our own video services which aren't slowed down at all ever."
In other words, the horse is halfway out of the barn so they're trying to shoot it dead. Or at least cripple it by taking out a few legs.
Actually Quality of Service prioritizing is important. As long as letting Video Packet A ahead of E-mail Packet B doesn't result in someone noticing that their e-mail is running too slow, it shouldn't be a problem. (It's a lot easier to notice that your video is buffering too much than that your e-mail is too slow.)
The problem comes into play when the ISPs say "video packets from Company A will be slow unless they pay us for Speedy Delivery... oh, and our own video packets get to use the Super Speedy Delivery service."
In addition, Netflix already paid THEIR ISP to get the best possible transmission. Their ISP negotiated with their upstream provider and so on to the top. Peering agreements between the top level providers ensure the data flows between them properly. Then the data flows back down the system on the other side with ISPs paying upstream providers and finally subscribers paying their ISPs. Everyone is getting paid by the people servicing them. What these greedy ISPs want is a slice of the profits that Netflix is making while at the same time seeking a reason to kill off Netflix in favor of their own video services.
There are just two problems with this.
1) Netflix is competing against the cable ISPs' own video services. The Cable ISPs would like nothing more than to cut off service to Netflix or slow it down to such a point that it becomes unusable. This would mean (in their minds) more people going to their services and more profit. They have a financial incentive and the technological capability to sabotage Netflix. The FCC, for all it's pro-business stance, has been about the only thing holding them back from doing this blatantly. If the FCC says "go ahead, this is fine" then Internet Video is as good as dead.
2) But won't people just run to other services, you ask. I'd answer: What other services? In my area, I have a choice of Time Warner Cable and that's about it. There is still Verizon DSL, but they've shown that they want to get rid of that as quickly as possible. My only other real option is a mobile connection, but that's hideously expensive for the types of uses I pay Time Warner Cable for. (You do NOT want to stream 4 Netflix shows every day over your 4G connection!!!) Many other people are in similar situations.
So if an ISP blocks or slows down Netflix, our options (as consumers) is pretty much grumble and continue to send checks to the ISPs or have no Internet access at all. No competition = no incentive to actually focus on the customers. Meanwhile, Netflix has a decent amount of competition. If Amazon pays the protection money to ISPs and Netflix doesn't, Amazon wins and Netflix loses. Netflix is in a dominant position now, but we all know (as do they) that this can change quickly.
Exactly. Managing packets to make sure that your customers get the best possible service is one thing. (Slowing e-mail packets slightly since that won't be noticed as much as a video slowdown, for example.) Turning around and saying "That's a nice video service you have there. Too bad it's going to slow to a crawl unless you pay us some protection money." just stinks of extortion. (Even if the X makes it sound cool.)
That's part of it. The other part is that ISPs are greedy and see companies making lots of money online. What's worse: Some of these companies are competing against the ISPs' own video solutions which - until now - have had monopoly or near-monopoly control of the area. Even worse: These companies aren't providing payments to these ISPs at all. So the ISPs think: If these companies are making money across our "pipes", why don't we get paid for it? Then they demand the ability to charge companies for making money on "their pipes."
Of course, those of us who don't have our brains tainted by greed realize that consumers are paying for their connections and the companies are paying for theirs. The ISPs don't have a right to get paid by a company solely on the basis of "they're making money off of our users" any more than a phone company can charge a pizza place for making money by that phone company's users calling in pizza orders.
Perjury isn't a crime if a big corporation does it. Just like if you infringe copyright then you're an evil, artist killing individual. If a corporation steals your copyrighted image/photo/etc and uses it for their own purposes, at most they just need to say "oops" and toss some token payment your way. Corporations are people and all people are created equal, but some people are more equal than others.
Exactly. Sadly, American politicians have fallen in love with standardized tests as a measure to "make sure teachers are teaching our kids well enough." So they mandate a bunch of tests (which funnels money to Pearson and other big educational companies/campaign contributors) and tie those test scores to the teachers' jobs. The result: Teaching to the test and ONLY teaching what is on the test. If it's not on the test, then the teacher is essentially risking their job teaching the kids that as it takes away from valuable test prep time.
Having two kids in NY elementary schools, we know this all too well. Thankfully, we also know we can refuse the tests. Unfortunately, now politicians are pushing back against people who refuse the tests saying things like the kids will still be given the tests against the parents' wishes. Some have even gone so far as to insinuate that parents who refuse the tests will get a visit from Child Protective Services. (Because protecting your child from abusive tests which don't benefit their education in any way is apparently considered child abuse now.)