Where do you have any evidence that she ever believed in magic?
Well, her quote was "I dabbled into witchcraft. I never joined a coven,". Clearly, she believed that witchcraft was real at the time she "dabbled" in it (why dabble in something that isn't real?), but I haven't heard her say "Well, I've come to realize that there's no such thing as magic, so it's not really a big deal". All I've heard is that she says she never committed to it.
Oh by the way, Coons wasn't just "interested in communism", he went to South Africa to do volunteer work with a communist organization.
That organization was also a church group, are you as concerned about the Presbyterians and Evangelical Christians who were running it? That aside, he's a Democrat now and has been for many years, he's not still saying that Marxism is a good idea. He also went on to be a corporate lawyer for the company that makes Gore-Tex. Doesn't sound like the type of career that a fiery Marxist would follow, does it?
If you have a quote from O'Donnell that witchcraft isn't real and that there's no such thing as magic, I'll give her the benefit of the doubt as well, but from what I've seen, you're not likely to find one.
y a literal definition, one the law would use, it does provide internet services. It does take other people's data and move it around. It does, roughly speaking, the same things a usual ISP would do, but instead of end-users it hosts servers.
There's nothing special about dealing with end-users that gets you CC protections/obligations, it's merely about third-party goods or data.
Again, you either don't or won't understand. Common carrier means you are a pipe, a conduit, a means of transporting data from the host to the user and nothing more. Since Rackspace doesn't provide this service, they are not a common carrier under any definition of the term.
You're trying to hide behind definitions, as if it's what the courts are going to use to decide the issue.
That's exactly what the courts use to decide issues. That's why it's important to understand the definitions of various terms. That's why it's important not to misuse those terms.
Yes, you're right about common usage. Hallelujah indeed. But in touting that you miss the larger picture, yet again.
So, now that you've conceded that you were wrong on common usage, you're going to move the goalposts to legal terminology. Sadly, they're the same thing in this particular instance.
So, since you've lost on common usage, and you've lost on legal usage, what are you going to go with next? I'd recommend just admitting it's your own personal usage, which just happens to be at odds with everyone else's use of the term. It's the only chance I can think of for you to be right on any level at all.
Which is more dangerous a man who at one time (and possibly still) wanted to turn this country into the Soviet Union, or a woman who at one time dated men who practiced witchcraft?
Or, put another way, a guy who at one time was interested in communism, or a grown woman who still believes in magic?
An sms only really has one requirement, that the sender and recipient both have cell-phones, regardless of cell provider. With IM, there are tons of choices, all of which are basically inoperable (not counting having Trillian running 20 different accounts). For IM to be as easy, there would need to be one widely accepted IM client-of-choice. As it is now, I know people on AIM, Y! Messenger, MSN, Google, FB Chat and plenty of others.
You can engage in as much name-calling and childishness as you like, it doesn't change the fact that you're wrong. You're a childish amateur who can't gracefully admit that they're wrong. And there's no mistaking, you *know* you're wrong, you just aren't capable of admitting it. You seem to think I'm arguing to win, but I won the minute you hit submit on your first post. You demonstrated that you haven't any idea what you're talking about, and yet, for reasons that are beyond comprehension, you've continued to try to convince someone, probably yourself, that you're right. So, once again, it's your turn. Which will it be, another round of "I know your are but what am I?", which you've used a few times now, or some more name-calling? The one thing I'm reasonably sure I'm not going to see is an argument that Rackspace is an ISP that makes any sense, since they aren't one. Unless they're willing to change what their company does to support your argument, I'm afraid you're just out of luck.
You're just pissy that I know more than you. I know what you're saying, but I also know when it's not true or useful. I know enough not to insist on the term ISP as if it matters because it's not a legal term, or a precise technical term, nor does it directly map to the subject at hand. It's a convenient label, when it is, and nothing more.
Pure comedy gold. You've been wrong about virtually everything you've said. You haven't been able to back up a single thing you've said. Every argument you've made has ultimately boiled down to "because I say so". You've demonstrated that you don't communicate well, you don't understand the technology being discussed, you don't understand the legal principles involved with those technologies, and you either refuse to learn or are incapable of understanding any of those things. You take a simple phrase, that is well understood to everyone in the industry, and spend tons of time arguing why everyone else is wrong, and you're the only one who's right. You don't see why this may make you seem like a crank? We're not talking about my definition versus yours, we're talking about the definition that's pretty much universally used throughout the tech industry versus your definition, which is only used by you. Your definition is only useful if you're talking to yourself.
Same here. Over the years, I've usually used eReader since it's available on almost anything with a screen and it's generally a nice enough app, but the Android version is the weakest release they've had yet. iReader is probably closer to eReader's other versions on other platforms than eReader for Android is.
As for colors, I generally stick with black text on an off-white/tanish background day or night. I'm more likely to adjust the screen's brightness than change the colors most of the time.
if you weren't replying to me, I'd mod that interesting:)
Would the background color on a reader be enough to make a difference, or is this more specifically related to how the backlight is done (eg: LED vs fluorescent)
No, the topic here is about Rackspace censoring (removing) a client. People started by discussing if they should have done it and if they are legally safer if they do so, or not.
The legal angle raised the issue of their status, and what services they provide. Beyond just server hosting they do bundle, balance, and provide internet connectivity themselves (ask them) but do not own the tubes.
Then someone called Rackspace an ISP because they provide internet services and technically this would make them an internet service provider. Right, but wrong, but also irrelevant because ISP isn't a legally defined term and nothing about CC status hinges on it, but instead the actual services provided.
And that is when you used your internet cop badge to set the official topic to "What's an ISP". And of course because you don't have one you're actually vastly off-topic. Not a big deal. It's just funny that you can't see what you're doing.
Wrong. This particular thread started when OeLeWaPpErKe said that Rackspace dumping Jones' site ran afoul of net neutrality. Net neutrality has nothing to do with hosting companies at all. Without understanding what the term ISP means though, you're not going to understand what counts as a common carrier, or what network neutrality actually applies to.
Nope. You're describing a scenario, you aren't saying which bits are critical to legal protection.
What? How else would you explain this to someone who doesn't understand the architecture, other than to use an example?
Why should the hosting provider but not the phone company be expected to monitor Carl and other users? Both have multiple customers. Both are totally automated in the course of their normal business.
The hosting provider isn't monitoring anyone. You put your data on the hosting provider's machines, you gave it to them to publish, they are acting as a proxy to YOU.
I worked for a phone company - they made PBX systems. I assume you'll pitch a fit over this too.
Yeah, past tense I see. I'm not surprised, if it was in any sort of a technical position, I'd have gotten rid of you too.
Why doesn't the phone company need a TOS? (Yes yes, CC status.) But WHY? Not "because it's a LABEL" but because it does things that make it unreasonable to scan every piece of content.
No, because they're not HOSTING the content to begin with. All they do is move the data, they don't provide it.
No, I want to talk about why we protect carriers but not hosts. I know there's a difference but I'm saying it's small and seemingly irrelevant.
No, the difference is huge, and that's why the terminology is important to the conversation.
Another of your points is that they simply aren't an ISP, and that's right
Finally, halli-fucking-lujiah.
but useless.
awwww, so close, so close......
You're getting bent out of shape over my broad use of ISP, despite the fact that I'm giving you ample venue to discuss the actual issues at hand, in whatever terminology you wish to use.
No, I'm pointing out that words have meanings, and refusing to use the accepted meaning of the word makes the conversation impossible to have. If you refer to all violent crimes as murders, when someone talks about the specifics of an assault you are having a different conversation. If you try to talk to a chef about "meat" while you're actually talking about poultry or fish, you will not be having the same conversation he is, and the information he gives you probably won't apply to what you want to discuss.
You could choose to not quote any of this and respond only to the portions discussing legal liability for third-party content. I'd appreciate it even.
Or you could choose to admit that you're in way over your head, trying to have a discussion about a topic you don't really understand, but I have a sneaking suspicion you won't.
I like reading in the dark. Maybe sitting out on my deck before I call it a day, maybe lying in bed before I go to sleep, but I just don't want to turn on a separate light, therefore, a backlit screen is an absolute must-have. I also tend to read whenever I have a spare second, making my phone the ideal gizmo since it's always with me. Up until now, my phone just was never up to the task (battery life/small screen), so I went through a variety of devices to deliver my precious ebooks (Casio Casiopia, Compaq iPaq, HP iPaq, iPod). Now I have an HTC Evo, which is the biggest screen I've had for an ereader, and I love it.
First and foremost eyestrain becomes an issue (for me at least) but there's also the issue of bright white light screwing with your circadian rhythms (something that I struggle with enough already)
I'm lucky when it comes to the eyestrain thing, it just doesn't seem to bother me much. Wouldn't a bedside lamp, or booklight or whatever you're using cause the same problems with circadian rhythms? If not, what makes it different? (Again, that's not something I've ever really thought of, I'm lucky enough to sleep like a log whenever I close my eyes).
Anyway, I'm certainly not arguing about your choice, different solutions for different people. I imagine if I had the same requirements as you, I'd probably really like the Kindle or Nook.
I'm confused now, are you in favor of the hypothetical law, or against it?
Here you say: "I was amazed/appalled at how many parents brought their 5-10 year old children to see that movie." Which is pretty much in the spirit of the law the poll asked about, which is, these children were given access to Resident Evil with their parent's consent (as opposed to a bunch of 5 - 10 year-olds showing up at the movie by themselves without their parent's permission).
But then you say this: "While I did spend a few minutes during the previews questioning the parenting ability of those people at no time did I think to myself ""Boy, we really need to create a new regulatory power which would stop this." That would be stupid. Freedom means people are going to do things you think are retarded." Who ever said that parents wouldn't be allowed to decide what their kids get access to? The law in question is all about parental consent, not law-enforcement over-riding what a parent decides to do....
You seem not to understand the point of Slashdot and most other internet forums. They aren't for the owners of a company to meet and pseudonymously discuss their plans. They're for everyone to share their opinions on things, including the actions of others.
I'm certainly not questioning their ownership of their business, just discussing it. Perhaps this is why you feel unheard - as your message seems to be common knowledge.
I understand it quite well actually. The risk of sharing your opinion is that it will be challenged, and that you will have to defend that opinion. That's what we're doing here.
Maybe you're a joke and you just don't know it... You'd just claimed to have beaten me up for my opinion when you actually bypassed the entire opinion and attacked the technical gotcha against which you couldn't win.
So far, you're coming out worse and worse in this exchange because you do not have the vaguest idea what you're talking about. You don't understand the terminology, you don't understand the technology, and you don't understand the legal principles. Yes, you can have your own opinion, but when everything it's based on is wrong, it's not likely to be a particularly useful opinion.
I've contracted the phone company to move my data too. Most people would consider it snooping if they payed more attention to this data than required to route it.
Yes, that's exactly true, because they are not the hosting company. They are analogous to being an ISP, contracted to move the data between the host, and the client. You've just explained why AT&T or CableVision shouldn't snoop packets between Rackspace and you, you've said nothing about Rackspace looking at publicly accessible data hosted on their own machines.
I'm not concerned about them having the data as you imply because it ultimately is public as you say, but about contracting with a business who spends more time monitoring content than strictly required. It's both a business risk to deal with someone like that and a sign that the company isn't as efficient or well priced as it could be.
Wouldn't the fact that they have a TOS imply that they may take a look at what you're putting up? How would they know if you're violating the TOS if they never looked at the sites? Further, what happens if someone contacts them and says that a site they're hosting violates that TOS. Are they supposed to avoid looking at the site and ignore that report, or would they reasonably take a look at the site to see what's there, and take action if the TOS is being violated?
Right. I said that wrong. Their clients were potentially losing advertisers due to user pressure and Rackspace took action to placate those advertisers, and thus their direct customers. I hadn't heard of any non-ad related pressure but some clients could have experienced direct pressure, or theoretically had a problem themselves.
I haven't seen any reports suggesting that advertiser pressure, or even pressure from other clients had anything to do with Rackspace's decision. Could that have happened? Possibly, but if we're just going to do baseless speculation you might as well be concerned that they dropped the site because the New World Order has infiltrated Rackspace.
I know the usual meaning of the term. I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm saying YOU are wrong in your juvenile insistence that it is the only meaning of those words.
So is it just this phrase where it's juvenile to stick to the actual meaning, or is it anything? Could you go to McDonalds and get infuriated at them giving you a ground-beef patty sandwich when you clearly wanted a ham sandwich when you asked for a hamburger? I mean, sure, the common and accepted meaning of hamburger is ground beef, but it has the word HAM in it, and it's stupid to just blindly stick
Strange. The guy I was talking to gave me the same impression.
Translation: "I know you are but what am I?". Did you stick your tongue out at the monitor as you typed that?
Yes, intentional stupidity looks good on you.
No, I'm sure you had meant for that comment to be bitingly sarcastic, it's just that you're not very good at it. The "internet cop" comment just isn't getting you the reaction you'd hoped for. Instead of an angry retort, you're getting the sound of crickets.
There's that internet cop thing again. Slow down this time and maybe you'll be able to understand.
You seem to believe that there's a master organization that blesses certain phrases, as if because you're used to using ISP to mean "provider of internet connectivity" it's law that it means that, and only that to everyone.
I have said I know what you mean, I just find it funny how strongly you insist that your meaning is the absolute truth.
No, not a master organization. There is however a common consensus among professionals on the definition of the term. That you so desperately want to misuse the term, even after you're corrected reflects more about you than me.
Nope. I'm happy to discuss it with whatever terms you wish. I'm not the one stuck on definitions.
You're the one declaring there's one official meaning.
Yeah, see that's the problem. If you insist on using a made-up definition, you're not having the same discussion as anyone else. That's probably why you're bringing common-carrier status into this. Companies like Rackspace don't get common-carrier status, because they're not common carriers. This would have been clear if you hadn't redefined ISP, because they do act as common carriers.
Okay, that was the other option I listed.
Which would mean it's not an ISP.
No, that part merely (I'll take your word for it) confirmed the other option I listed. I was assuming Rackspace would handle selling connectivity too, as a package solution, but this is what I was referring to where I said "[routing your data] to what you'd call an actual ISP."
I've mentioned over and over that they don't sell connectivity. That is why they're not an ISP. You've been responding to all of those comments, so how is it that it took you this long to figure this out?
Hmmm, and yet you can't even recognize the common term ROFL when someone puts punctuation between the letters. And you'd rather be belligerent than ask.
No, smart money is on you missing this too.
Why does it matter if you put "ROFL" on the comment or not. It didn't make sense in context, and it wasn't funny, so what was the point of a) saying it and b) defending it? Do you typically roll around on the floor laughing at things that aren't jokes?
No shit. That's pretty much a given unless I'm a majority stockholder. You call this insight?
Insight? No, I call it blisteringly obvious, and yet you seemed to have a hard time getting it.
Yeah, that's the profit motive I was speculating they might have. Simply that they'll lose more advertisers by keeping the loon than his business is worth.
And I'm pretty sure it's flawed, but that they recognize that and it's not their reason.
Usually when companies admit they're able to police some content special interests descend and bury the company under endless demands to do so. Then every accused loon not removed results in conspiracy theories. Eventually the company, having wasted enough money trying to placate people and only gotten bad PR, becomes institutionally surly and just stops answering complaints.
Firstly, they don't have advertisers, they have clients. They host the sites, they don't write the c
I wasn't aware your special 'Internet Cop' badge afforded you extra privileges. I may have to upgrade.
Again, no idea what you're trying to say.
Yes, and that was the intent. It wouldn't be crazy-silly if it were plausible.
It was to reflect the stupidity of taking the turd out of the punchbowl when it's just going to fall back in. Unless they had walls, etc... And then even if it worked they'd end up with - AOL...
Meh, whatever.
Yeah, you can explain it as many times as you like, it was still stupid, and not in the intentional way you're claiming.
No, I'm able to see flaws in what must be their reasoning.
They're doing it to either A) distance themselves from bad publicity , or B) silence a dissenting view by terminating their service.
Option B is morally wrong, not because I say so but because it relies on censorship, not words. And not because it's morally wrong, but because it won't achieve the moral goal. Censoring hate doesn't make it go away.
Yes, they've got a right to not serve a customer. But if they use that right simply because they don't like the customer's views they're censors.
Moreover, it's useless. To counter haters you need to have rational explanation of why they're wrong, not more screaming.
It doesn't matter what their reasoning is, it's their choice. Personally, I think their reasons are fairly simple, they don't want to be associated with a loon who's garnered negative worldwide attention for being a crazy asshole. Imagine, a private business that doesn't want to be associated with that.
Sure, and that commonly agreed on usage is technically incorrect in that it ignores all level of internet service providing.
I know what you're talking about, and you know what I'm talking about, but you're too pompous to allow for someone else's different usage of a term. No, can't do that, must do it Loud Howard's way or he'll bitch and derail the meeting arguing over terminology.
Oh, I get it now, it's everyone in the industry that's wrong, and you're right. That clears things up nicely. Doesn't make you seem like an ignorant crank at all when put that way.
Bold it next time. It lacked a little something this way.
Hmm, I wonder why I could be getting frustrated. Oh, I know, it's because I've made the mistake of actually trying to engage with you, even though you not only pride yourself on, but actually revel in coming off as ignorant. Like one of those guys who corrects someone who says the word "nuclear" by loudly saying "no, it's nuk-u-lar".
The content provider is the person who provides the server and the data.
There are many ISPs in the scenario, some provide backbone connections, some provide end-user connections, some provide hosted-end-user connections, etc.
Rackspace is an ISP, the servers they host are analogous to residential users.
Yeah, still wrong.
They offer network uptime guarantees so I'm under the impression they actually do sell internet access in the traditional way.
You wouldn't be under that impression if you actually had the vaguest idea what you were talking about. I've explained it several times now, so I won't bother doing it again. End result, still wrong.
But, even if they do not, they still provide a very ISP-like function in routing your data from your server down to the basement to what you'd call an actual ISP.
Nope. Rackspace ends at the Rackspace firewall. It's then picked up by the ISPs they use. They contract with quite a few of them. That redundancy is how they manage to keep that uptime guarantee on the network end of things. I assume you'll ignore this part, since it a) contradicts what you've been saying, and b) is actually correct,
Ummm, beat up for it. R. O. F. L. More like flailed at by a wet nerd.
What does that even mean?
And I meant it, as an example of what would be going through their head - ie, sillyness, not as an actual literal example of something they could build.
Yes, I got that when you said it the first time. Repeating your reasoning doesn't actually help it to make sense. The "walled garden" example was stupid in this context. All you seem to be doing now is refusing to back away from a poorly constructed argument, rather than admit that it was a bad choice on your part to start with.
Sure sure, but they're wrong to do so. Both morally and financially.
And you're the final arbiter of what's moral? I must have missed that memo. As for financially, I fail to see how dropping a single small customer who can't seem to abide by the terms of service they agreed to places them in any financial jeopardy.
I am. They aren't required to listen, but I am so entitled.
So you just want to howl into the wind at people who have absolutely no reason to listen to you. Okay.
No, it doesn't. It has more common meanings but it doesn't have one certified definition. It's a provider of internet service. Hosting is one internet service, providing subscriber access is another.
It has one commonly accepted definition. That you're too thick to understand that is entirely your own problem. The only thing you demonstrate by continuing to willfully ignore the correct use of the term is that you shouldn't be taken seriously in the conversation.
They move the call from where it originates to another place. Much like Rackspace moves your data from your server to the person who requests it.
NO. Rackspace does not move your data anywhere, that's the job of the ISP. You make the request. The ISP transports that request to Rackspace. Rackspace makes the data available. The ISP trasports it back to you. No wonder you don't seem to grasp the term, you don't seem to understand how the technology works.
Yes, exactly. Just like a hosting provider.
NO AGAIN. The person speaking is the content provider/host. (Rackspace) The phone company is the ISP. (AT&T/Verizon/CableVision/whoever) The person listening is the end user/client. (You)
Without a connection they'd be storing your server in a box, not hosting your data. But considering Rackspace offers uptime guarantees I'll assume you're just wrong again.
Yes, they host your data, on a server, and that server is connected to the internet the same way yours is, by Rackspace contracting with, in this case multiple ISPs, to have access. You can not buy internet access from Rackspace, that is not their business. You can buy internet access from Comcast, Time Warner, CableVision, or a host of others, because those are ISPs. The way you're defining ISP at this point means if you run Apache on your laptop, you're an ISP because you make data available on the internet the same way that Rackspace does. Do you think you're an ISP?
Are you really not able to understand the difference, or are you being willfully ignorant on this?
Especially if you're a big King fan. I don't want to give things away, but King references his other books quite a bit (more in the later parts of Tower), which I thought was a lot of fun. I would also recommend reading Hearts in Atlantis, The Talisman and Black House first if you haven't read those. Not necessary, but Dark Tower is more fun if you have.
One of the things that used to keep people away was that it seemed like it'd never be finished. Now that it has an ending, I'd definitely say take a look.
I disagree with the sibling posts though. Personally I liked the later books more than the early ones, but of course that's just a personal preference.
TFA: It seems hard to fathom he'd direct a full season's worth of episodes, but that is the early plan, and who says they have to do 22 to create that bridge to the next film? Well duh. They should obviously only do 19.
It doesn't matter that they don't provide residential service.
The literal meaning is irrelevant. "Internet Service Provider" has a specific definition, and all the talk on your part doesn't change that meaning. Rackspace is NOT an ISP.
Yes. In a social fashion and roughly as a legal principle. That's how phone-companies work. If there's a complaint the police can call and get records, but they do absolutely no policing of content.
If they did screen, admitting it needs to be done, they could be found to be doing it badly. By keeping a hands-off policy they avoid the risk, legal and political.
See, this is exactly why definitions matter. The phone company IS a service provider. They move the call from point a to point b, and that's their only function. They do not host the content of the call. The person speaking can be thought of to be the content provider, and the person listening can be thought of to be the end user of that content, but the phone company has nothing to do with either party except to provide them the connection. This is the same function served by an ISP. Rackspace, however, does NOT provide the connection, but does in fact host the content.
Yes, the police can get the phone company to terminate the service of someone breaking the law. But the phone company itself doesn't monitor calls for illegal content, nor shut anyone off themselves except for late payment.
That's because the telephone company is a common carrier, and not a content hosting company. Rackspace is a content hosting company, and not a common carrier. Completely different situations.
No, my point was that it sound silly. I didn't think you'd get so worked up about it.
I mean, what do they think, that they're creating some safe little AOL type thing? No, of course not. So all they're doing is caving to pressure and kicking an unpopular customer. In doing so they're establishing a practical, if not legal, precedent that they'll cave on their customers over anything that generates enough bad PR.
So you added a totally irrelevant and inaccurate point to the discussion and don't see why you'd get beat up for it. Ooookay.
They should instead refuse the censor even the haters. Everyone finds something hateful - to some people mocking religion is a crime, to others it's a well-respected standup routine. And only a complete hands-off policy will protect them from justified complaints of bias towards some special interests.
If they agree with the special interest they should give them a free account specifically for the purpose of showing up the haters. That'd actually do something - otherwise the haters will just get another server and spew their stupid from darker corners.
And I think you should open your house to the public and let homeless people sleep in your kitchen. What do both of these things have in common? What I think you should do with your property is none of my business and you're free to ignore my opinion. What you think Rackspace should do with their property is none of your business and they're free to ignore your opinion. Don't hire them if you don't like their policies, but this sense that you're entitled to tell them what to do with their equipment is ludicrous.
This isn't a flame though, because I've decided to redefine "idiot" to mean "swell fella", and "troll" to mean "insightful defender of the proletariat". Since we don't want to get mired in definitions, that makes perfect sense, right?
Because rackspace is providing Internet service - specifically, a place to put your site - just as critical, and just as integral, as the cable that goes from here to there or the final 25 feet to your DLS modem or whatever.
It doesn't matter if they're providing an internet service. That is NOT what the phrase Internet Service Provider means. If you want to make up your own meanings for technical terms, that don't mean the same thing as the commonly accepted meaning of those terms, don't be surprised when people treat you like you don't know what you're talking about. ISP means, specifically, the carrier. Time Warner is an ISP. AT&T is an ISP. Cablevision is an ISP. Rackspace IS NOT AN ISP.
It does us absolutely no good to have freedom on some portion of the cables, if we don't have freedom on the other things the cables connect to.
Bullshit. You do not have the right to demand that someone publish and make available your message. Hosting providers have every right to choose who they do business with. If a group of Christians want to start their own hosting company, I hold no grudge against them if they don't want to host hard-core porn, but by the logic you're following, they should be required to.
What you are missing here in your pedantic "we only care about the cables" mode, is that the Internet is a conceptual thing made of everything from cables, routers, sites, rules both legal and consensual, modems, computers small and large, nameservers, etc.
Using the correct name for something isn't pedantic. We name things, and use those names consistently, so that people can actually have a conversation and be reasonably certain that they're discussing the same thing. Would you call your printer "the computer" if something went wrong with it, and then complain that the person helping you is being pedantic when he points out that the broken component is not "the computer"? I mean, really, the computer is the whole package, isn't it? Further, you seem to be mistaking "The Internet" as being the same thing as an "Internet Service Provider". ISP is a specific term which refers to the means you use to access the internet. Nothing more, nothing less. Your literal interpretation of those three words is wrong.
What I'm telling you is that it is inappropriate and wrong to try to limit the discussion that way.
Awesome. Start your own hosting company, and let everyone say what they want on it. That's your prerogative. You don't have the right though to tell other people what their companies have to host.
As far as I'm concerned, if you host websites, you should have no more say in what's on them than you do in what's on a customer's mind when they walk into your candy store. That is the state to seek.
Wrong analogy. Think of Rackspace as a shopping mall. Think of this guy Jones as someone who wishes to operate a store in Rackspace's mall. He tells Rackspace that he's opening a shop that sells socks, but actually opens a shop that sells hardcore porn. The mall didn't agree to let him use their structure for that purpose, and they kick him out for violating his lease agreement. The mall is private property, Jones' options are to buy his own property to have his shop on, or to find another mall that will accept his shop, but he does not have the right to force the mall to let him use their property.
So stop banging your head on the table and start thinking. Freedom of the system is the critical issue here. Not which part of the Internet you think the discussion should be limited to.
Going around telling people this is a net neutrality issue is simply stupid. It is not related to net neutrality, and will only cause confusion of the actual issue. If you want to start a movement where people are somehow supposed to have the right
It's pretty obvious to anyone who actually *reads* the Qur'an that it is chock *full* of "hate speech" by any sane definition.
So what?
For that matter, so is the old testament. And as Jesus says in the new testament, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law (the Old Testament) or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law (the Old Testament) until everything is accomplished. (Matthew 5:17-18)"
Okay, bronze-age superstition bad, still with you.
Seems to me that all the ISP has accomplished is siding with one set of haters against another set of haters.
/me bangs head on desk over and over. RACKSPACE. IS. NOT. AN. I.S.P. Why is this so hard for people to understand?
Better to not suppress speech at all. If you sell a platform to speak from (which is a good part of what an ISP does), then the best path is to let the speech flow.
If you suppress what you don't like, you won't know what those people are thinking or doing, which can definitely work against you. You create an underground; this is always true. Look at alcohol and drug prohibition. Complete failures, and not only that, failures that reek of unintended negative consequences.
A private organization is not required, in any way, to provide a platform to anyone who wants it. Jewish Temples don't let Nazis give speeches on their property. This jackass in Florida isn't required to let Muslims preach in his "church". I don't have to let my neighbor stand on my porch to shout to the neighborhood about how he doesn't like my dog. Rackspace isn't required to provide server space to people who don't abide by their terms of service. Florida jackass will just have to find another host, of which there are thousands to choose from.
Unfortunately, companies aren't looking to do the right thing. They're looking to do the profitable thing.
First of all, "right thing" is pretty subjective. I wouldn't let this guy post on my facebook page, let alone have server space on my machines. Secondly, yes, companies are motivated by profit. If they weren't, they'd be called charities. Why is it surprising that a for-profit venture is going to do things in the interest of making a profit?
Network Neutrality, as it is currently being debated, restricts the practice of charging a a content provider for preferred service, or degrading a user's access if a content provider does not pay. It has NOTHING to do with content, just access. Your example of YouTube being blocked has NOTHING to do with net neutrality. Can an ISP do that? Sure. Would it be infuriating? Yep. Is it a net neutrality issue? NO. That this isn't a net neutrality issue says nothing about whether it's good or bad that an ISP can technically do this, it only says that it's an entirely different issue.
Internet service provider. If Rackspace wasn't that their customers wouldn't pay them. It's not all cable-modems and end-users.
Are you trying to say that Rackspace is an Internet Service Provider? I just want to be clear, because if you are, I'm absolutely stunned by the number of people on Slashdot who don't know what that term means.
d as long as they want the right to distance themselves from their customers content - not be charged for conspiracy for letting you publish your illegal plans for instance - it's only reasonable that they stay out of people's content. Otherwise they would, by not erasing something, be tacitly approving it.
Let me get this straight, you think that the only defense against liability is to ignore ALL content on your machines, and have NO terms of service agreement? That doesn't even make sense. If the plans are "illegal", the account would have to be shut down whether there's a TOS in place or not.
Here's where Rackspace needs to decide if it's as its name says, space for racks - regardless of what they host, or a walled content-screened garden like AOL.
What is this, "toss around random techie sounding phrases whether they make sense or not day"? In order for Rackspace to be a walled garden, it would require that people get Rackspace accounts, which enables them to only view Rackspace content without the option to access the greater Internet. Since it's already been established that Rackspace is NOT an ISP, and since Rackspace's business is to host content that is accessible from the internet regardless of how you access the internet, it is therefore impossible for Rackspace to be a walled-garden unless they go into a completely different business than the one they're in.
Rackspace is a private business, and has the right to place whatever restrictions they wish on what they will host, within the limits of the law. Ditching this nutjob's website is well within their rights, and has nothing to do with net neutrality.
Hosting services are INTERNET SERVICES, therefore, by TECHNICAL DEFINITIONS ALONE, Rackspace is an ISP.
That's only true if you make up your own definition for what an ISP is. linky Using your made up definition, Wordpress is an ISP, Google is an ISP, Optimum Online is an ISP, BattleNet is an ISP, hell, even Slashdot is an ISP, since they all provide services on the internet. In reality, Optimum Online is the only one of those that is actually an ISP.
Big difference between an Internet CONNECTION provider, and an internet SERVICE provider.
Wrong. While I'll grant that you didn't make up "internet connection provider", it's a more rarely used term generally used to mean the same thing as "internet service provider".
English not your first language?
Why yes, yes it is actually. I'm also proficient enough at it to actually know what various terms mean. Perhaps you should study up a little yourself though.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, her quote was "I dabbled into witchcraft. I never joined a coven,". Clearly, she believed that witchcraft was real at the time she "dabbled" in it (why dabble in something that isn't real?), but I haven't heard her say "Well, I've come to realize that there's no such thing as magic, so it's not really a big deal". All I've heard is that she says she never committed to it.
That organization was also a church group, are you as concerned about the Presbyterians and Evangelical Christians who were running it? That aside, he's a Democrat now and has been for many years, he's not still saying that Marxism is a good idea. He also went on to be a corporate lawyer for the company that makes Gore-Tex. Doesn't sound like the type of career that a fiery Marxist would follow, does it?
If you have a quote from O'Donnell that witchcraft isn't real and that there's no such thing as magic, I'll give her the benefit of the doubt as well, but from what I've seen, you're not likely to find one.
Still not true, no matter how many times you say it. Rackspace isn't an ISP under the legal definition either.
An Internet Service Provider (ISP) is a company that provides third parties access to the Internet. Rackspace does not provide internet access to third-parties.
Again, you either don't or won't understand. Common carrier means you are a pipe, a conduit, a means of transporting data from the host to the user and nothing more. Since Rackspace doesn't provide this service, they are not a common carrier under any definition of the term.
That's exactly what the courts use to decide issues. That's why it's important to understand the definitions of various terms. That's why it's important not to misuse those terms.
So, now that you've conceded that you were wrong on common usage, you're going to move the goalposts to legal terminology. Sadly, they're the same thing in this particular instance.
So, since you've lost on common usage, and you've lost on legal usage, what are you going to go with next? I'd recommend just admitting it's your own personal usage, which just happens to be at odds with everyone else's use of the term. It's the only chance I can think of for you to be right on any level at all.
Or, put another way, a guy who at one time was interested in communism, or a grown woman who still believes in magic?
An sms only really has one requirement, that the sender and recipient both have cell-phones, regardless of cell provider.
With IM, there are tons of choices, all of which are basically inoperable (not counting having Trillian running 20 different accounts). For IM to be as easy, there would need to be one widely accepted IM client-of-choice. As it is now, I know people on AIM, Y! Messenger, MSN, Google, FB Chat and plenty of others.
You can engage in as much name-calling and childishness as you like, it doesn't change the fact that you're wrong. You're a childish amateur who can't gracefully admit that they're wrong. And there's no mistaking, you *know* you're wrong, you just aren't capable of admitting it.
You seem to think I'm arguing to win, but I won the minute you hit submit on your first post. You demonstrated that you haven't any idea what you're talking about, and yet, for reasons that are beyond comprehension, you've continued to try to convince someone, probably yourself, that you're right.
So, once again, it's your turn. Which will it be, another round of "I know your are but what am I?", which you've used a few times now, or some more name-calling? The one thing I'm reasonably sure I'm not going to see is an argument that Rackspace is an ISP that makes any sense, since they aren't one. Unless they're willing to change what their company does to support your argument, I'm afraid you're just out of luck.
Pure comedy gold.
You've been wrong about virtually everything you've said. You haven't been able to back up a single thing you've said. Every argument you've made has ultimately boiled down to "because I say so".
You've demonstrated that you don't communicate well, you don't understand the technology being discussed, you don't understand the legal principles involved with those technologies, and you either refuse to learn or are incapable of understanding any of those things.
You take a simple phrase, that is well understood to everyone in the industry, and spend tons of time arguing why everyone else is wrong, and you're the only one who's right. You don't see why this may make you seem like a crank? We're not talking about my definition versus yours, we're talking about the definition that's pretty much universally used throughout the tech industry versus your definition, which is only used by you. Your definition is only useful if you're talking to yourself.
Same here. Over the years, I've usually used eReader since it's available on almost anything with a screen and it's generally a nice enough app, but the Android version is the weakest release they've had yet. iReader is probably closer to eReader's other versions on other platforms than eReader for Android is.
As for colors, I generally stick with black text on an off-white/tanish background day or night. I'm more likely to adjust the screen's brightness than change the colors most of the time.
if you weren't replying to me, I'd mod that interesting :)
Would the background color on a reader be enough to make a difference, or is this more specifically related to how the backlight is done (eg: LED vs fluorescent)
Wrong. This particular thread started when OeLeWaPpErKe said that Rackspace dumping Jones' site ran afoul of net neutrality. Net neutrality has nothing to do with hosting companies at all. Without understanding what the term ISP means though, you're not going to understand what counts as a common carrier, or what network neutrality actually applies to.
What? How else would you explain this to someone who doesn't understand the architecture, other than to use an example?
The hosting provider isn't monitoring anyone. You put your data on the hosting provider's machines, you gave it to them to publish, they are acting as a proxy to YOU.
Yeah, past tense I see. I'm not surprised, if it was in any sort of a technical position, I'd have gotten rid of you too.
No, because they're not HOSTING the content to begin with. All they do is move the data, they don't provide it.
No, the difference is huge, and that's why the terminology is important to the conversation.
Finally, halli-fucking-lujiah.
awwww, so close, so close......
No, I'm pointing out that words have meanings, and refusing to use the accepted meaning of the word makes the conversation impossible to have. If you refer to all violent crimes as murders, when someone talks about the specifics of an assault you are having a different conversation. If you try to talk to a chef about "meat" while you're actually talking about poultry or fish, you will not be having the same conversation he is, and the information he gives you probably won't apply to what you want to discuss.
Or you could choose to admit that you're in way over your head, trying to have a discussion about a topic you don't really understand, but I have a sneaking suspicion you won't.
I'll take the opposing position :)
I like reading in the dark. Maybe sitting out on my deck before I call it a day, maybe lying in bed before I go to sleep, but I just don't want to turn on a separate light, therefore, a backlit screen is an absolute must-have. I also tend to read whenever I have a spare second, making my phone the ideal gizmo since it's always with me. Up until now, my phone just was never up to the task (battery life/small screen), so I went through a variety of devices to deliver my precious ebooks (Casio Casiopia, Compaq iPaq, HP iPaq, iPod). Now I have an HTC Evo, which is the biggest screen I've had for an ereader, and I love it.
I'm lucky when it comes to the eyestrain thing, it just doesn't seem to bother me much. Wouldn't a bedside lamp, or booklight or whatever you're using cause the same problems with circadian rhythms? If not, what makes it different? (Again, that's not something I've ever really thought of, I'm lucky enough to sleep like a log whenever I close my eyes).
Anyway, I'm certainly not arguing about your choice, different solutions for different people. I imagine if I had the same requirements as you, I'd probably really like the Kindle or Nook.
I'm confused now, are you in favor of the hypothetical law, or against it?
Here you say:
"I was amazed/appalled at how many parents brought their 5-10 year old children to see that movie."
Which is pretty much in the spirit of the law the poll asked about, which is, these children were given access to Resident Evil with their parent's consent (as opposed to a bunch of 5 - 10 year-olds showing up at the movie by themselves without their parent's permission).
But then you say this:
"While I did spend a few minutes during the previews questioning the parenting ability of those people at no time did I think to myself ""Boy, we really need to create a new regulatory power which would stop this." That would be stupid. Freedom means people are going to do things you think are retarded."
Who ever said that parents wouldn't be allowed to decide what their kids get access to? The law in question is all about parental consent, not law-enforcement over-riding what a parent decides to do....
I understand it quite well actually. The risk of sharing your opinion is that it will be challenged, and that you will have to defend that opinion. That's what we're doing here.
So far, you're coming out worse and worse in this exchange because you do not have the vaguest idea what you're talking about. You don't understand the terminology, you don't understand the technology, and you don't understand the legal principles. Yes, you can have your own opinion, but when everything it's based on is wrong, it's not likely to be a particularly useful opinion.
Yes, that's exactly true, because they are not the hosting company. They are analogous to being an ISP, contracted to move the data between the host, and the client. You've just explained why AT&T or CableVision shouldn't snoop packets between Rackspace and you, you've said nothing about Rackspace looking at publicly accessible data hosted on their own machines.
Wouldn't the fact that they have a TOS imply that they may take a look at what you're putting up? How would they know if you're violating the TOS if they never looked at the sites? Further, what happens if someone contacts them and says that a site they're hosting violates that TOS. Are they supposed to avoid looking at the site and ignore that report, or would they reasonably take a look at the site to see what's there, and take action if the TOS is being violated?
I haven't seen any reports suggesting that advertiser pressure, or even pressure from other clients had anything to do with Rackspace's decision. Could that have happened? Possibly, but if we're just going to do baseless speculation you might as well be concerned that they dropped the site because the New World Order has infiltrated Rackspace.
So is it just this phrase where it's juvenile to stick to the actual meaning, or is it anything? Could you go to McDonalds and get infuriated at them giving you a ground-beef patty sandwich when you clearly wanted a ham sandwich when you asked for a hamburger? I mean, sure, the common and accepted meaning of hamburger is ground beef, but it has the word HAM in it, and it's stupid to just blindly stick
No, that would be evidence that Christianity exists, not their beliefs are correct.
Translation: "I know you are but what am I?". Did you stick your tongue out at the monitor as you typed that?
No, I'm sure you had meant for that comment to be bitingly sarcastic, it's just that you're not very good at it. The "internet cop" comment just isn't getting you the reaction you'd hoped for. Instead of an angry retort, you're getting the sound of crickets.
No, not a master organization. There is however a common consensus among professionals on the definition of the term. That you so desperately want to misuse the term, even after you're corrected reflects more about you than me.
Yeah, see that's the problem. If you insist on using a made-up definition, you're not having the same discussion as anyone else. That's probably why you're bringing common-carrier status into this. Companies like Rackspace don't get common-carrier status, because they're not common carriers. This would have been clear if you hadn't redefined ISP, because they do act as common carriers.
Which would mean it's not an ISP.
I've mentioned over and over that they don't sell connectivity. That is why they're not an ISP. You've been responding to all of those comments, so how is it that it took you this long to figure this out?
Why does it matter if you put "ROFL" on the comment or not. It didn't make sense in context, and it wasn't funny, so what was the point of a) saying it and b) defending it? Do you typically roll around on the floor laughing at things that aren't jokes?
Insight? No, I call it blisteringly obvious, and yet you seemed to have a hard time getting it.
Firstly, they don't have advertisers, they have clients. They host the sites, they don't write the c
Again, no idea what you're trying to say.
Yeah, you can explain it as many times as you like, it was still stupid, and not in the intentional way you're claiming.
It doesn't matter what their reasoning is, it's their choice. Personally, I think their reasons are fairly simple, they don't want to be associated with a loon who's garnered negative worldwide attention for being a crazy asshole. Imagine, a private business that doesn't want to be associated with that.
Oh, I get it now, it's everyone in the industry that's wrong, and you're right. That clears things up nicely. Doesn't make you seem like an ignorant crank at all when put that way.
Hmm, I wonder why I could be getting frustrated. Oh, I know, it's because I've made the mistake of actually trying to engage with you, even though you not only pride yourself on, but actually revel in coming off as ignorant. Like one of those guys who corrects someone who says the word "nuclear" by loudly saying "no, it's nuk-u-lar".
Yeah, still wrong.
You wouldn't be under that impression if you actually had the vaguest idea what you were talking about. I've explained it several times now, so I won't bother doing it again. End result, still wrong.
Nope. Rackspace ends at the Rackspace firewall. It's then picked up by the ISPs they use. They contract with quite a few of them. That redundancy is how they manage to keep that uptime guarantee on the network end of things. I assume you'll ignore this part, since it a) contradicts what you've been saying, and b) is actually correct,
What does that even mean?
Yes, I got that when you said it the first time. Repeating your reasoning doesn't actually help it to make sense. The "walled garden" example was stupid in this context. All you seem to be doing now is refusing to back away from a poorly constructed argument, rather than admit that it was a bad choice on your part to start with.
And you're the final arbiter of what's moral? I must have missed that memo. As for financially, I fail to see how dropping a single small customer who can't seem to abide by the terms of service they agreed to places them in any financial jeopardy.
So you just want to howl into the wind at people who have absolutely no reason to listen to you. Okay.
It has one commonly accepted definition. That you're too thick to understand that is entirely your own problem. The only thing you demonstrate by continuing to willfully ignore the correct use of the term is that you shouldn't be taken seriously in the conversation.
NO. Rackspace does not move your data anywhere, that's the job of the ISP. You make the request. The ISP transports that request to Rackspace. Rackspace makes the data available. The ISP trasports it back to you. No wonder you don't seem to grasp the term, you don't seem to understand how the technology works.
NO AGAIN.
The person speaking is the content provider/host. (Rackspace)
The phone company is the ISP. (AT&T/Verizon/CableVision/whoever)
The person listening is the end user/client. (You)
Yes, they host your data, on a server, and that server is connected to the internet the same way yours is, by Rackspace contracting with, in this case multiple ISPs, to have access. You can not buy internet access from Rackspace, that is not their business. You can buy internet access from Comcast, Time Warner, CableVision, or a host of others, because those are ISPs. The way you're defining ISP at this point means if you run Apache on your laptop, you're an ISP because you make data available on the internet the same way that Rackspace does. Do you think you're an ISP?
Are you really not able to understand the difference, or are you being willfully ignorant on this?
Especially if you're a big King fan. I don't want to give things away, but King references his other books quite a bit (more in the later parts of Tower), which I thought was a lot of fun. I would also recommend reading Hearts in Atlantis, The Talisman and Black House first if you haven't read those. Not necessary, but Dark Tower is more fun if you have.
One of the things that used to keep people away was that it seemed like it'd never be finished. Now that it has an ending, I'd definitely say take a look.
I disagree with the sibling posts though. Personally I liked the later books more than the early ones, but of course that's just a personal preference.
TFA: It seems hard to fathom he'd direct a full season's worth of episodes, but that is the early plan, and who says they have to do 22 to create that bridge to the next film?
Well duh. They should obviously only do 19.
The literal meaning is irrelevant. "Internet Service Provider" has a specific definition, and all the talk on your part doesn't change that meaning. Rackspace is NOT an ISP.
See, this is exactly why definitions matter. The phone company IS a service provider. They move the call from point a to point b, and that's their only function. They do not host the content of the call. The person speaking can be thought of to be the content provider, and the person listening can be thought of to be the end user of that content, but the phone company has nothing to do with either party except to provide them the connection. This is the same function served by an ISP. Rackspace, however, does NOT provide the connection, but does in fact host the content.
That's because the telephone company is a common carrier, and not a content hosting company. Rackspace is a content hosting company, and not a common carrier. Completely different situations.
So you added a totally irrelevant and inaccurate point to the discussion and don't see why you'd get beat up for it. Ooookay.
And I think you should open your house to the public and let homeless people sleep in your kitchen. What do both of these things have in common? What I think you should do with your property is none of my business and you're free to ignore my opinion. What you think Rackspace should do with their property is none of your business and they're free to ignore your opinion. Don't hire them if you don't like their policies, but this sense that you're entitled to tell them what to do with their equipment is ludicrous.
Fine. You're either an idiot or a troll.
This isn't a flame though, because I've decided to redefine "idiot" to mean "swell fella", and "troll" to mean "insightful defender of the proletariat". Since we don't want to get mired in definitions, that makes perfect sense, right?
It doesn't matter if they're providing an internet service. That is NOT what the phrase Internet Service Provider means. If you want to make up your own meanings for technical terms, that don't mean the same thing as the commonly accepted meaning of those terms, don't be surprised when people treat you like you don't know what you're talking about. ISP means, specifically, the carrier. Time Warner is an ISP. AT&T is an ISP. Cablevision is an ISP. Rackspace IS NOT AN ISP.
Bullshit. You do not have the right to demand that someone publish and make available your message. Hosting providers have every right to choose who they do business with. If a group of Christians want to start their own hosting company, I hold no grudge against them if they don't want to host hard-core porn, but by the logic you're following, they should be required to.
Using the correct name for something isn't pedantic. We name things, and use those names consistently, so that people can actually have a conversation and be reasonably certain that they're discussing the same thing. Would you call your printer "the computer" if something went wrong with it, and then complain that the person helping you is being pedantic when he points out that the broken component is not "the computer"? I mean, really, the computer is the whole package, isn't it? Further, you seem to be mistaking "The Internet" as being the same thing as an "Internet Service Provider". ISP is a specific term which refers to the means you use to access the internet. Nothing more, nothing less. Your literal interpretation of those three words is wrong.
Awesome. Start your own hosting company, and let everyone say what they want on it. That's your prerogative. You don't have the right though to tell other people what their companies have to host.
Wrong analogy. Think of Rackspace as a shopping mall. Think of this guy Jones as someone who wishes to operate a store in Rackspace's mall. He tells Rackspace that he's opening a shop that sells socks, but actually opens a shop that sells hardcore porn. The mall didn't agree to let him use their structure for that purpose, and they kick him out for violating his lease agreement. The mall is private property, Jones' options are to buy his own property to have his shop on, or to find another mall that will accept his shop, but he does not have the right to force the mall to let him use their property.
Going around telling people this is a net neutrality issue is simply stupid. It is not related to net neutrality, and will only cause confusion of the actual issue. If you want to start a movement where people are somehow supposed to have the right
So what?
Okay, bronze-age superstition bad, still with you.
RACKSPACE. IS. NOT. AN. I.S.P. Why is this so hard for people to understand?
A private organization is not required, in any way, to provide a platform to anyone who wants it. Jewish Temples don't let Nazis give speeches on their property. This jackass in Florida isn't required to let Muslims preach in his "church". I don't have to let my neighbor stand on my porch to shout to the neighborhood about how he doesn't like my dog. Rackspace isn't required to provide server space to people who don't abide by their terms of service. Florida jackass will just have to find another host, of which there are thousands to choose from.
First of all, "right thing" is pretty subjective. I wouldn't let this guy post on my facebook page, let alone have server space on my machines. Secondly, yes, companies are motivated by profit. If they weren't, they'd be called charities. Why is it surprising that a for-profit venture is going to do things in the interest of making a profit?
Network Neutrality, as it is currently being debated, restricts the practice of charging a a content provider for preferred service, or degrading a user's access if a content provider does not pay. It has NOTHING to do with content, just access.
Your example of YouTube being blocked has NOTHING to do with net neutrality. Can an ISP do that? Sure. Would it be infuriating? Yep. Is it a net neutrality issue? NO.
That this isn't a net neutrality issue says nothing about whether it's good or bad that an ISP can technically do this, it only says that it's an entirely different issue.
Are you trying to say that Rackspace is an Internet Service Provider? I just want to be clear, because if you are, I'm absolutely stunned by the number of people on Slashdot who don't know what that term means.
Let me get this straight, you think that the only defense against liability is to ignore ALL content on your machines, and have NO terms of service agreement? That doesn't even make sense. If the plans are "illegal", the account would have to be shut down whether there's a TOS in place or not.
What is this, "toss around random techie sounding phrases whether they make sense or not day"? In order for Rackspace to be a walled garden, it would require that people get Rackspace accounts, which enables them to only view Rackspace content without the option to access the greater Internet. Since it's already been established that Rackspace is NOT an ISP, and since Rackspace's business is to host content that is accessible from the internet regardless of how you access the internet, it is therefore impossible for Rackspace to be a walled-garden unless they go into a completely different business than the one they're in.
Rackspace is a private business, and has the right to place whatever restrictions they wish on what they will host, within the limits of the law. Ditching this nutjob's website is well within their rights, and has nothing to do with net neutrality.
That's only true if you make up your own definition for what an ISP is. linky
Using your made up definition, Wordpress is an ISP, Google is an ISP, Optimum Online is an ISP, BattleNet is an ISP, hell, even Slashdot is an ISP, since they all provide services on the internet. In reality, Optimum Online is the only one of those that is actually an ISP.
Wrong. While I'll grant that you didn't make up "internet connection provider", it's a more rarely used term generally used to mean the same thing as "internet service provider".
Why yes, yes it is actually. I'm also proficient enough at it to actually know what various terms mean. Perhaps you should study up a little yourself though.