Can someone explain to me, in simple terms, why Net Neutrality is needed? What are we worried about? This just means, to me, that we're going to be able to pay a bit more and get a bit better internet experience. Similar to, if I want to take a toll road, which is less congested than the rest of the highway system.
Why should Verizon, for example, be forced to prioritize gaming traffic at the same rate as, say, high speed internet for a Doctor's Office that is looking up records in a central database?
There is no example of free-for-all (libertarianism), nor does true libertarianism actually espouse an anarchical free-for-all. That's what MSNBC will tell you, but it's not the case.
Libertarians respect the rule of law, but we also respect the rights of an individual to direct his own path. Hence, Nokia is allowed to do what it damn well pleases with Qt.
Hence the reason we have the rule of law. We create laws that prevent sociopaths from doing things that they shouldn't. When in government, we have a balance of powers that prevents the Executive from screwing us over (when the Legislative and Judicial does its job), and visa versa.
You cannot make the case that "smart sociopaths rise to power, thus become CEOs" and thus insinuate that capitalism is bad. There just isn't any justifiable case that can be made for it. The author that I responded to suggested that the Banking Crisis of 2008 was a result of corrupt CEO's, and it was. It absolutely was. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't have banks, and it doesn't mean that the government central banks (ECB, BCB, Federal Reserve) aren't just as corrupt, and just as harmful to the economy. It also doesn't mean we shouldn't have CEOs, because plenty of companies have powerful CEOs who do good things.
The ultimate point that I'm making is that Nokia is free to do whatever they like. That's part of capitalism. If you want a government telling Nokia what to do, then you deserve the outcome that you get.
You're right. The new NVIDIA Teslas (C2070) have 448 cores, not 292.
If you're doing work that a super-computer needs to be doing, your software is massively parallel. Otherwise, run it on your laptop at home.
I suppose from TFA that this is going to be run as a virtual machine layer. The last thing we need is yet another layer on our computers to slow them down even further.
I suppose it will be ironic, however, if User-Friendly, Widely-Accepted Desktop Linux finally comes in the form of a product you run inside of Windows.
What is "better"? I'm sure you'll find some folks to disagree with you on that.
bunch of people wasting money
What is "wasting"? Again, we'll could find some folks to disagree.
How is this something to be congratulated?
Doesn't the patent office need funding? Every government service that exists needs to prove its own worth, usefulness, and budgetary rationale. The age of free money is over. The age of stealing money from one justifiable service to fund another [unjustifiable] service is also over.
You need to pay the tax bills of someone making $125k/year or $250k/year, living in a high expense area, before you surmise that someone is rich, simply because they make a bit more than you.
One of capitalism's many problems is that corporations are run by capitalistic humans, and such humans concern themselves by definition with rational self-interest.
That's not the problem, my dear, it's the point of it all ('sup USSR?).
There is nothing that makes me sicker at my stomach than to listen to/read how a true socialist would "equitably" take one large group of people's money away and give it to another large group of people.
The goal of society is not to ensure that Artist B can live on their "work", or to assume/surmise how harmed Artist A would/wouldn't be by robbing them of their earnest reward and distributing it according to how society and politicians would see fit. It sucks, I know, but to make an attempt at "living" on an artists work is a fool's game. It's called "work" because it's not fun. If work were fun, you'd hear people talking about "going to fun", but instead, you hear them talk about "going to work." There is a reason for that. If an artist can live on his/her work, he/she got lucky, plain and simple.
If artists don't do it for the money, then let them get a job and pay for their own bills, and then promote independent forms of distribution. Note, I'm not suggesting that the government promote this, I'm suggesting that *you* promote this by being the guy/girl who buys from independent sources, and who only buys from independent artists. Don't buy from major labels. "The simplest" way of dealing with this equitably is to promote private / independent forms of distribution, or even sources like iTunes, rather than having everyone pimped out by the music industry to begin with.
Yes, Steve Jobs is getting rich off of iTunes. And Jeff Bezos is getting rich off of the Amazon Publishing Marketplace. But these guys are creating careers for people who publish their work independently, and never seen agents / contracts / labels etc.
This entire concept that you've relished over is pure Marxism disguised as a "solution" in search of a real problem, which doesn't exist anymore to begin with.
Slashdot Mirror
Why should Verizon, for example, be forced to prioritize gaming traffic at the same rate as, say, high speed internet for a Doctor's Office that is looking up records in a central database?
Who the fuck said anything about a 100% tax rate?
Libertarians respect the rule of law, but we also respect the rights of an individual to direct his own path. Hence, Nokia is allowed to do what it damn well pleases with Qt.
You cannot make the case that "smart sociopaths rise to power, thus become CEOs" and thus insinuate that capitalism is bad. There just isn't any justifiable case that can be made for it. The author that I responded to suggested that the Banking Crisis of 2008 was a result of corrupt CEO's, and it was. It absolutely was. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't have banks, and it doesn't mean that the government central banks (ECB, BCB, Federal Reserve) aren't just as corrupt, and just as harmful to the economy. It also doesn't mean we shouldn't have CEOs, because plenty of companies have powerful CEOs who do good things.
The ultimate point that I'm making is that Nokia is free to do whatever they like. That's part of capitalism. If you want a government telling Nokia what to do, then you deserve the outcome that you get.
You're right. The new NVIDIA Teslas (C2070) have 448 cores, not 292. If you're doing work that a super-computer needs to be doing, your software is massively parallel. Otherwise, run it on your laptop at home.
I suppose from TFA that this is going to be run as a virtual machine layer. The last thing we need is yet another layer on our computers to slow them down even further. I suppose it will be ironic, however, if User-Friendly, Widely-Accepted Desktop Linux finally comes in the form of a product you run inside of Windows.
money is diverted to something better
What is "better"? I'm sure you'll find some folks to disagree with you on that.
bunch of people wasting money
What is "wasting"? Again, we'll could find some folks to disagree.
How is this something to be congratulated?
Doesn't the patent office need funding? Every government service that exists needs to prove its own worth, usefulness, and budgetary rationale. The age of free money is over. The age of stealing money from one justifiable service to fund another [unjustifiable] service is also over.
You need to pay the tax bills of someone making $125k/year or $250k/year, living in a high expense area, before you surmise that someone is rich, simply because they make a bit more than you.
One of capitalism's many problems is that corporations are run by capitalistic humans, and such humans concern themselves by definition with rational self-interest.
That's not the problem, my dear, it's the point of it all ('sup USSR?).
They most certainly are.
I don't think that is what you want.
The fundamental problem with socialists is that they are poor mathematicians.
There is nothing that makes me sicker at my stomach than to listen to/read how a true socialist would "equitably" take one large group of people's money away and give it to another large group of people. The goal of society is not to ensure that Artist B can live on their "work", or to assume/surmise how harmed Artist A would/wouldn't be by robbing them of their earnest reward and distributing it according to how society and politicians would see fit. It sucks, I know, but to make an attempt at "living" on an artists work is a fool's game. It's called "work" because it's not fun. If work were fun, you'd hear people talking about "going to fun", but instead, you hear them talk about "going to work." There is a reason for that. If an artist can live on his/her work, he/she got lucky, plain and simple. If artists don't do it for the money, then let them get a job and pay for their own bills, and then promote independent forms of distribution. Note, I'm not suggesting that the government promote this, I'm suggesting that *you* promote this by being the guy/girl who buys from independent sources, and who only buys from independent artists. Don't buy from major labels. "The simplest" way of dealing with this equitably is to promote private / independent forms of distribution, or even sources like iTunes, rather than having everyone pimped out by the music industry to begin with. Yes, Steve Jobs is getting rich off of iTunes. And Jeff Bezos is getting rich off of the Amazon Publishing Marketplace. But these guys are creating careers for people who publish their work independently, and never seen agents / contracts / labels etc. This entire concept that you've relished over is pure Marxism disguised as a "solution" in search of a real problem, which doesn't exist anymore to begin with.