Yes, in much the same way that you are carted off to jail and permanently blacklisted when you are late paying for tap water or garbage collection.
I was referring to speed-traps and traffic cameras, actually. Ringing any bells? Do you think, your downloads of torrents or "excessive" Netflix-watching will be tolerated by the city any better, then your driving "at excessive rate of speed"?
What are you going on about?
As I said, if the town owns the cables, then the town is the ISP — yet another government monopoly. The talks about "switching ISPs" is nothing but spin.
Municipal Fiber Network Will Let Customers Switch ISPs In Seconds
What does this even mean? What is an ISP today, other than the owner and provider of cables to your house? That they may also provide an e-mail account (under their domain) is hardly relevant to most users.
If the cables are owned by the town, then the town is the ISP. And they'll be as good about maintaining them, as they are about patching the roadways and snow-plowing. Oh, and breaking any of the rules will no longer be a mere TOS-violation, but breaking the law — enforced not by clueless customer support, but by the (equally clueless, but armed) police. Even if you escape a fine, you will be banned from the city's network and there goes your ability to "switch ISPs".
By 2027? I wonder, if we'll have the flying car by then...
This reminds me of a tale about one ancient prankster, who promised a local ruler to teach a donkey to read — in 20 years (in exchange for room, board, and pay). Asked by a friend, if he is not afraid to fail — and face the consequences of the ruler's anger — he replied: "In 20 years either the donkey, or the ruler, or myself will die."
Netflix, Hulu, Youtube, Vimeo, iTunes, Amazon, etc.
These are all sources of information, rather than manufacturers.
As I said, it is close, but it fails to pick up the very nuance that brought this legislation up in the first place.
There is no "nuance". We have owners of networks being ordered, what they can and can not do with their own equipment, that's all. The sole justification is "The Greater Good", property rights be damned.
I'm still waiting to hear an argument for "net neutrality", that would can not also be used to argue against special traffic lanes for city buses and cars with E-ZPass.
If the gov't gave priority in such a way that only one manufacturer could build those buses your metaphor would be in better shape.
You keep repeating this meaningless "manufacturer" thing — there is no "manufacturer" of Internet packets. Net neutrality tries to combat packet-discrimination based on origin (who sent this?) and contents (what are the originating and destination ports, what's inside — when "deep" inspection is enabled).
In case of roads, NY city's prioritizing of city buses is a perfectly apt analogy. But, because they are government owned, Slashdot's dominant Statists are cool.
I don't think your example supports your point. In fact I think it does the opposite.
In my example, AT&T is suing the town over special treatment allowing Google to complying with the regulatory requirements AT&T had to comply with. They may even have a point. But it is an example of how companies are forced — by the regulations — to compete for favors of government and judges, rather than those of customers.
To correct your metaphor you'd need to distinguish the vehicles on the road by brand, not by their capabilities.
The government, that maintains the roads, gives priority to the buses, which it also runs, how is that? For another, the government, which wants everybody to pay tolls electronically (to make it easier to track citizens' movements), gives priority to cars that have E-ZPass installed.
The problem with Internet Service Provision is lack of competition. Adding more and more regulation only helps the incumbents ward off would-be challengers.
I can not identify an argument for "apples" that would not also not apply to "oranges."
When the point is common to all fruits — as mine was common to all networks used and maintained by different entities — apples and oranges can, indeed, be discussed interchangeably.
I've always viewed the entire net neutrality debate as a (hopefully) temporary sideshow while/until we fix the larger problem of lack of competition. The only reason (e.g.) Comcast is able to pull the shenanigans that they are is because we can't go anywhere else.
The less free the market — and government officials deciding, what the owner can do with his cables, is unquestionably reducing freedom — the harder it is for Capitalism's usual forces to work their magic.
"Only vehicles built by Ford can drive in this neighborhood."
Nope, that's a false analogy. Net-neutrality supporters argue against discrimination based on packet-contents and origination, not the network gear, that generated them. Giving priority to Ford-made buses over Ford-made sedans would've been wrong in their opinion.
I don't know ZFS well but was under the impression it's for file servers.
It is, literally, for everything. Some of the features only make sense if you have multiple physical drives — devices, that are unlikely to fail at the same time. But compression, deduplication, snapshots, encryption — these are all useful on anything.
I can not identify an argument for "net neutrality", that would not also not apply to attempts to prioritize — such as by designating traffic lanes for them — buses, bicycles, cars with electronic toll-payment transponders, and even for emergency vehicles.
In fact, I suspect strongly, that, had the Internet-service provision been in government's hands already, the same people arguing for "net neutrality" today, would've been arguing for "sensible measures" to prioritize "special" traffic.
And vice versa — had private corporations been in charge of streets and highways, their attempts at prioritization would've attracted the same criticism currently hitting the ISPs.
In the Israeli pride parade a year ago, a Haredi Jewish man assulated a young girl with a knife and killed her
The cited Leviticus 20:13 passage says nothing about women. Whatever motivated that lunatic, it was not the scripture — certainly not that part of it. Fail.
Israelis are actually smart enough to have gun control, unlike the US.
You might start reading with the Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org].)
Dude, this would've been +5 Funny, if you weren't serious. Your very link lists:
Brunei
Iran (fourth conviction)
Mauritania
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Sudan
Yemen
Parts of Nigeria and Somalia
No Christian country is listed...
Heck, look at the reactions of many conservative American Christians on Twitter after this recent incident -- lots are willing to praise the attack, even though it was an act of terrorism perpetrated by a Muslim!
Citations?
(Still hoping, you were being sarcastic, though...)
ZFS is under CDDL and would not even need to be "licensed" in the usual sense — it is free for anybody to take. "Too free" for certain zealots, in fact, which is why it was not part of Linux kernel for a while — until the supposed "license incompatibility" myths got debunked.
What did Apple find lacking about ZFS, that would justify creating their own, is, indeed, a mystery. Probably, a case of the Not Invented Here Syndrome. Sad...
I'd say there are a large number of Evangelicals, Mormons and Catholics out there who have expended enormous amounts of energy to block same-sex marriage
You do not need to be religious to see the "same-sex marriage" nonsense for what it is — a self-contradicting term like "low-sodium salt", "vegetarian bacon", and "space helicopter".
The question was — and remains — which Christian priest or Rabby has recently radicalized a young follower with Leviticus 20:13?
not as spectacular as shooting them up in a nightclub
It is not "not as spectacular", it is completely incomparable. Do keep trying...
It might have escaped your notice, but a certain holy book beloved of Jews, Christians and Muslims has this rather interesting passage:
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
Leviticus 20:13
And which Christian priest or Rabby has recently radicalized a young follower with it?..
Now I'll show you Westboro Baptist and New Hartford Word of Life.
Do show me... All I've ever heard them say is that "God hates fags" and "rejoices when soldiers die" — because American military now allows gays to serve. They are as silly as most Democrats you'd see, but they aren't encouraging murder.
Even without the Internet, this guy could've simply attended a talk by an imam:
killing gays according to Islamic law should be done "out of compassion"
(This sort of bigoted hatred is Ok, but arguing that sayers of such stuff should be carefully watched would get you banned from Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit.)
FBI Director James Comey echoed President Obama's statement that he does not think the Orlando shooting was a plot directed from outside of the U.S.
You're comparing the interpretation of Judaism and Christianity in mostly secular societies to the interpretation of Islam in strongly religious societies.
Let's avoid the confusing generalities and pronouns.
I'm comparing the interpretation of Judaism and Christianity in the US to the interpretation of Islam in the US. How is that?
Well, what you're actually comparing is the modern interpretation of Judaism and Christianity with the worst interpretations of Islam.
Wrong. I'm comparing modern interpretation of Judaism and Christianity — you got that part right — with the modern interpretation of Islam. From Pakistan to Qatar to Gaza (however much the latter need the support of "progressives"), homosexuality is illegal and being gay is deadly.
Traditional Jewish law required homosexuals to be put to death
Only if the government is based on Judaism. But Jews remain Jews living under other governments — unlike Islam, neither Judaism nor Christianity make government structure part of the scripture.
A Jew wishing to live under Jewish law can move to Israel — his religion does not compel him to bring that law to the government of his residence. Same is true about Christians. As I said, Islam is unique.
Rebuttals are for (understood) arguments. "Wha?" indicates lack of understanding. Sadly, you would not elaborate on what you meant...
You'll be ludicrously overcharged as a tourist, but that's capitalism too, right?
It is Capitalism, and it is fine (you do not object to taxes collected based on one's ability to pay — do you?). Uber is also Capitalism — and it does enable the free information flow, that is so important for free market to function.
Taxis choke the streets during most afternoons
That's not a problem of taxis — it is a problem of streets being inadequate for the number of people in need of travel. Forcibly reducing the number of taxis will, very simply, leave some people unable to get where they need to get.
I submit Panama City as an object lesson in giving people incentives to have cars in the streets.
Who is this "giver of incentives" in your world model?
But, whoever that is, you acknowledge it yourself: Panama city is already gridlocked — Uber/Lyft did not make it so. Their ride-sharing options may even alleviate the problem, but the point you are raising is off topic.
It's easy to rail against taxi monopolies. You've done so repeatedly. I'm sure it's a good argument.
Thank you. It is also the topic here.
How do you imagine that Uber or Lyft will provide a disincentive towards gridlock?
You know, this is funny (in addition to being off-topic)... I'm sure, you'd be arguing the exact opposite point, if the subject was Netflix et. al "gridlocking" the Internet infrastructure. If a network can not keep up with the users' demand, it is the problem of either the network or the people demanding — trying to blame it on those answering the demand is wrong and bogus. And this is equally true for both computer and transportation networks.
because Abrahamic religions in general and Islam in particular have been saying that for 2000 years
Judaism is a lot older than that, actually, while Islam is a lot younger.
More importantly, Islam — uniquely among Abrahamic religions — compels the followers to do something about it. A Christian can be a "good Christian" if he merely prays for the sinners' salvation. A Muslim must act — and homosexuality is the greatest sin.
And then there is the inconvenient truth about Islam-prescribed world-order. Whereas (the original) Christianity left sæcular affairs to the contemporary government whoever they are — "Cæsar's to Cæsar" — Islam explains exactly how the government should be structured: a Theocracy with a Caliph at the top. This alone makes Islam incompatible with America's Constitution — but the same Constitution bans us from collectively acknowledging the problem.
Atheists aren't lining up to wipe people out over their lack of belief in deities.
The militant atheists of USSR have killed hundreds of thousands of priests — because religion competed for people's hearts and minds with Communism. As early as in 1919 Lenin — still alive and hale — wrote to Dzerzhinsky:
“...it is needed to get done with the priests and religion as soon as possible. Arrest the priests as the enemies of revolution and saboteurs, execute them without mercy everywhere you spot them. As many as you can! Churches should be shut down. The cathedrals have to be sealed and used as warehouses."
Criticism of irrational views and cultures which promote them is not 'hate.'
Communists' excesses aside, the sad reality is that the alternative to a well thought-out and established religion is not the sophisticated agnosticism, nor even the atheism, but the nasty superstitions and the crappier religions — including Islam.
Slashdot Mirror
A solution in search of a problem. Actually running cables to each house is rather easy. Where it is not done, it is due to local governments' interference, "sensible regulations", and bribe-seeking...
I was referring to speed-traps and traffic cameras, actually. Ringing any bells? Do you think, your downloads of torrents or "excessive" Netflix-watching will be tolerated by the city any better, then your driving "at excessive rate of speed"?
As I said, if the town owns the cables, then the town is the ISP — yet another government monopoly. The talks about "switching ISPs" is nothing but spin.
What does this even mean? What is an ISP today, other than the owner and provider of cables to your house? That they may also provide an e-mail account (under their domain) is hardly relevant to most users.
If the cables are owned by the town, then the town is the ISP. And they'll be as good about maintaining them, as they are about patching the roadways and snow-plowing. Oh, and breaking any of the rules will no longer be a mere TOS-violation, but breaking the law — enforced not by clueless customer support, but by the (equally clueless, but armed) police. Even if you escape a fine, you will be banned from the city's network and there goes your ability to "switch ISPs".
Congratulations, Statists.
By 2027? I wonder, if we'll have the flying car by then...
This reminds me of a tale about one ancient prankster, who promised a local ruler to teach a donkey to read — in 20 years (in exchange for room, board, and pay). Asked by a friend, if he is not afraid to fail — and face the consequences of the ruler's anger — he replied: "In 20 years either the donkey, or the ruler, or myself will die."
These are all sources of information, rather than manufacturers.
There is no "nuance". We have owners of networks being ordered, what they can and can not do with their own equipment, that's all. The sole justification is "The Greater Good", property rights be damned.
I'm still waiting to hear an argument for "net neutrality", that would can not also be used to argue against special traffic lanes for city buses and cars with E-ZPass.
You keep repeating this meaningless "manufacturer" thing — there is no "manufacturer" of Internet packets. Net neutrality tries to combat packet-discrimination based on origin (who sent this?) and contents (what are the originating and destination ports, what's inside — when "deep" inspection is enabled).
In case of roads, NY city's prioritizing of city buses is a perfectly apt analogy. But, because they are government owned, Slashdot's dominant Statists are cool.
In my example, AT&T is suing the town over special treatment allowing Google to complying with the regulatory requirements AT&T had to comply with. They may even have a point. But it is an example of how companies are forced — by the regulations — to compete for favors of government and judges, rather than those of customers.
The government, that maintains the roads, gives priority to the buses, which it also runs, how is that? For another, the government, which wants everybody to pay tolls electronically (to make it easier to track citizens' movements), gives priority to cars that have E-ZPass installed.
The problem with Internet Service Provision is lack of competition. Adding more and more regulation only helps the incumbents ward off would-be challengers.
When the point is common to all fruits — as mine was common to all networks used and maintained by different entities — apples and oranges can, indeed, be discussed interchangeably.
Hope that helps clarify it a bit.
The problem is, such regulation impedes competition — the more "reasonable regulations", that the governments — Federal and lesser alike — throw at the ISPs, the harder it is to unseat the incumbents. Comcast CEO plays golf with Obama — do you suppose, Obama-appointed FCC-commissioner(s) will be equally fair to Comcast and a challenger?
The less free the market — and government officials deciding, what the owner can do with his cables, is unquestionably reducing freedom — the harder it is for Capitalism's usual forces to work their magic.
Nope, that's a false analogy. Net-neutrality supporters argue against discrimination based on packet-contents and origination, not the network gear, that generated them. Giving priority to Ford-made buses over Ford-made sedans would've been wrong in their opinion.
It is, literally, for everything. Some of the features only make sense if you have multiple physical drives — devices, that are unlikely to fail at the same time. But compression, deduplication, snapshots, encryption — these are all useful on anything.
I can not identify an argument for "net neutrality", that would not also not apply to attempts to prioritize — such as by designating traffic lanes for them — buses, bicycles, cars with electronic toll-payment transponders, and even for emergency vehicles.
In fact, I suspect strongly, that, had the Internet-service provision been in government's hands already, the same people arguing for "net neutrality" today, would've been arguing for "sensible measures" to prioritize "special" traffic.
And vice versa — had private corporations been in charge of streets and highways, their attempts at prioritization would've attracted the same criticism currently hitting the ISPs.
Some neutralities are more neutral than others...
The cited Leviticus 20:13 passage says nothing about women. Whatever motivated that lunatic, it was not the scripture — certainly not that part of it. Fail.
Another fail. Israel makes it very easy for citizens to own weapons. In fact, they just made it even easier — so that civilians can better help authorities subdue terrorists. Israel has a lot of guns, but very little violence — the fact, America's anti-weapon zealots are struggling to explain because it tears apart their cliches...
Dude, this would've been +5 Funny, if you weren't serious. Your very link lists:
No Christian country is listed...
Citations? (Still hoping, you were being sarcastic, though...)
ZFS is under CDDL and would not even need to be "licensed" in the usual sense — it is free for anybody to take. "Too free" for certain zealots, in fact, which is why it was not part of Linux kernel for a while — until the supposed "license incompatibility" myths got debunked.
Even Linux now offers ZFS — Apple would've had a much easier time porting it, because MacOS is already FreeBSD-based and the FreeBSD-project had ZFS available "out of the box" for several major releases spanning many years.
What did Apple find lacking about ZFS, that would justify creating their own, is, indeed, a mystery. Probably, a case of the Not Invented Here Syndrome. Sad...
You do not need to be religious to see the "same-sex marriage" nonsense for what it is — a self-contradicting term like "low-sodium salt", "vegetarian bacon", and "space helicopter".
The question was — and remains — which Christian priest or Rabby has recently radicalized a young follower with Leviticus 20:13?
It is not "not as spectacular", it is completely incomparable. Do keep trying...
And which Christian priest or Rabby has recently radicalized a young follower with it?..
I said:
.
You replied:
.
Illiterate moron much?
In denial much? Here is an imam talking in Florida this April...
Do show me... All I've ever heard them say is that "God hates fags" and "rejoices when soldiers die" — because American military now allows gays to serve. They are as silly as most Democrats you'd see, but they aren't encouraging murder.
Even without the Internet, this guy could've simply attended a talk by an imam:
(This sort of bigoted hatred is Ok, but arguing that sayers of such stuff should be carefully watched would get you banned from Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit.)
At least, he is not blaming an anti-Islam movie by some weirdo...
Let's avoid the confusing generalities and pronouns.
I'm comparing the interpretation of Judaism and Christianity in the US to the interpretation of Islam in the US. How is that?
The shooter was an American citizen...
Wrong. I'm comparing modern interpretation of Judaism and Christianity — you got that part right — with the modern interpretation of Islam. From Pakistan to Qatar to Gaza (however much the latter need the support of "progressives"), homosexuality is illegal and being gay is deadly.
Only if the government is based on Judaism. But Jews remain Jews living under other governments — unlike Islam, neither Judaism nor Christianity make government structure part of the scripture.
A Jew wishing to live under Jewish law can move to Israel — his religion does not compel him to bring that law to the government of his residence. Same is true about Christians. As I said, Islam is unique.
Rebuttals are for (understood) arguments. "Wha?" indicates lack of understanding. Sadly, you would not elaborate on what you meant...
It is Capitalism, and it is fine (you do not object to taxes collected based on one's ability to pay — do you?). Uber is also Capitalism — and it does enable the free information flow, that is so important for free market to function.
That's not a problem of taxis — it is a problem of streets being inadequate for the number of people in need of travel. Forcibly reducing the number of taxis will, very simply, leave some people unable to get where they need to get.
Who is this "giver of incentives" in your world model?
But, whoever that is, you acknowledge it yourself: Panama city is already gridlocked — Uber/Lyft did not make it so. Their ride-sharing options may even alleviate the problem, but the point you are raising is off topic.
Thank you. It is also the topic here.
You know, this is funny (in addition to being off-topic)... I'm sure, you'd be arguing the exact opposite point, if the subject was Netflix et. al "gridlocking" the Internet infrastructure. If a network can not keep up with the users' demand, it is the problem of either the network or the people demanding — trying to blame it on those answering the demand is wrong and bogus. And this is equally true for both computer and transportation networks.
Judaism is a lot older than that, actually, while Islam is a lot younger.
More importantly, Islam — uniquely among Abrahamic religions — compels the followers to do something about it. A Christian can be a "good Christian" if he merely prays for the sinners' salvation. A Muslim must act — and homosexuality is the greatest sin .
And then there is the inconvenient truth about Islam-prescribed world-order. Whereas (the original) Christianity left sæcular affairs to the contemporary government whoever they are — "Cæsar's to Cæsar" — Islam explains exactly how the government should be structured: a Theocracy with a Caliph at the top. This alone makes Islam incompatible with America's Constitution — but the same Constitution bans us from collectively acknowledging the problem.
The militant atheists of USSR have killed hundreds of thousands of priests — because religion competed for people's hearts and minds with Communism. As early as in 1919 Lenin — still alive and hale — wrote to Dzerzhinsky:
Communists' excesses aside, the sad reality is that the alternative to a well thought-out and established religion is not the sophisticated agnosticism, nor even the atheism, but the nasty superstitions and the crappier religions — including Islam.