That Google is a marketing and advertising company really seems to escape the minds of many. They're often branded a benevolent open source company, when their core business--the search and advertising platform--is as closed source and proprietary as Windows. Google takes advantage of open source to support a closed source product.
He's against government involvement. That I understand. But he's admitting that he, as a member of the government, doesn't really understand the problem. He's admitted to being the problem, so why should he have his way?
You're saying the government should have control because government officials admit the government fucks up?
There haven't been any actual examples of a need for "net neutrality" (a name as cynical as the Patriot Act--the government is the least neutral organization on the planet). Its proponents have never been able to point to anything.
The internet was a government project that was given to the public. It's fantastic news that we're not handing the keys back to the feds just to appease a liberal mentality to federally regulate absolutely everything. Governments are corrupt and destructive, and unlike corporations, you can't punish them. For some reason, there's a real terror from some people over the idea of letting things manage themselves without government intervention. It's a control freak mentality.
Most of the comments to this article have, predictably, been written by angry Democrats ranting about Republicans and right-wingers. That tells you everything you need to know about what was behind the movement for net neutrality.
I'm afraid you're not going to get an unbiased, objective answer. This community is wildly anti-capitalist and anti-corporation, even though the very computers they use to post with are products of capitalism. Nonetheless, Internet access is not some constitutional right; it's a technological privilege. A modern convenience. ISPs run their own private networks for which you simply pay to gain access to, and they should be allowed to regulate them however they wish.
You'll never get an example of what exactly net neutrality is supposed to solve, because there haven't been any examples. It's entirely a hypothetical need. In the manic expansion of government that took place in the first two years of the Obama administration, net neutrality rose to the forefront as another way to centralize control of things that were once free and self-correcting.
Public sector unions came into existence quite recently. By "worker's rights," you mean public worker unions who pay less in pensions and health care than the private sector average, and their collective bargaining agreements that fire people based on seniority rather than merit? States are going bankrupt.
And left-wing parties put government over people. You sound like a high school kid who just discovered political parties.
There was no reason for "net neutrality." There was no example its proponents could point to that warranted its existence. Having politicians in Washington dictate how sysadmins are supposed to regulate their private network traffic is insane. Media lobbies would have a field day influencing politicians to "regulate" torrent traffic. The fact is that ISPs are private organizations, and you only pay for an IP address on their private networks. They can regulate the traffic on their own networks however they wish.
P.S. You come off as more intelligent if you capitalize your sentences.
First of all, I'd hardly call $5 for a complete development suite "greedy." For comparison, Visual Studio Ultimate costs $11,899. Second, Chris Lattner of Apple said that the charge is due to accounting rules which state that the product is new enough not to count as a free update. Apple has had to charge a couple of bucks for updates in the past for this reason.
I know you're being facetious, but what exactly is the basis for the premise that people who disagree with the way Apple does something are insulted and ridiculed? Even Apple fans constantly bitch about what Apple does. In fact, this change is due to customer demand, which means a lot of Apple fans made their voices known.
The accelerated major version number bumping is ridiculous. Google Chrome is only two years old, and it's already at version 10. In another two years, is it going to be at version 20? Will marketing droids decide that would make Chrome sound too old and decide to slow down the version numbers before then? Because all of this is driven by marketing.
How does stupid shit like this get modded up? What does P.T. Barnum have to do with the high resale value of a popular device? Do people on Slashdot really think they're more independent and insightful than other human beings? This place is one of the biggest collections of groupthink on the web.
It's supposed to be an appliance device that doesn't require drivers and other maintenance upkeep. It's not going to support your USB memory keys, USB hard drives (you don't even deal with the filesystem in iOS), wired keyboards, mice, teledildonics, and other crap. You can use a wireless keyboard, you can plug-in a camera with a camera connector, and you can use peripherals that utilize Apple's connector port, but that's it.
This is why PC games and some Android games have adjustable graphics settings for different hardware, but Apple deems that to be "fragmentation."
By "adjustable graphics settings," what you really mean is that developers are forced to support and test multiple GPUs, drivers, and operating systems, which is one of the reasons developers have embraced the static hardware configurations of game consoles.
Slashdot Mirror
That Google is a marketing and advertising company really seems to escape the minds of many. They're often branded a benevolent open source company, when their core business--the search and advertising platform--is as closed source and proprietary as Windows. Google takes advantage of open source to support a closed source product.
Please. Blaming the RIAA and MPAA for multimedia shortcomings in desktop Linux is embarrassing.
Linux on the desktop had problems with sound and video long before "tilt bits."
It's spelled "you're."
You're saying the government should have control because government officials admit the government fucks up?
There haven't been any actual examples of a need for "net neutrality" (a name as cynical as the Patriot Act--the government is the least neutral organization on the planet). Its proponents have never been able to point to anything.
The internet was a government project that was given to the public. It's fantastic news that we're not handing the keys back to the feds just to appease a liberal mentality to federally regulate absolutely everything. Governments are corrupt and destructive, and unlike corporations, you can't punish them. For some reason, there's a real terror from some people over the idea of letting things manage themselves without government intervention. It's a control freak mentality.
Most of the comments to this article have, predictably, been written by angry Democrats ranting about Republicans and right-wingers. That tells you everything you need to know about what was behind the movement for net neutrality.
I'm afraid you're not going to get an unbiased, objective answer. This community is wildly anti-capitalist and anti-corporation, even though the very computers they use to post with are products of capitalism. Nonetheless, Internet access is not some constitutional right; it's a technological privilege. A modern convenience. ISPs run their own private networks for which you simply pay to gain access to, and they should be allowed to regulate them however they wish.
You'll never get an example of what exactly net neutrality is supposed to solve, because there haven't been any examples. It's entirely a hypothetical need. In the manic expansion of government that took place in the first two years of the Obama administration, net neutrality rose to the forefront as another way to centralize control of things that were once free and self-correcting.
Public sector unions came into existence quite recently. By "worker's rights," you mean public worker unions who pay less in pensions and health care than the private sector average, and their collective bargaining agreements that fire people based on seniority rather than merit? States are going bankrupt.
And left-wing parties put government over people. You sound like a high school kid who just discovered political parties.
There was no reason for "net neutrality." There was no example its proponents could point to that warranted its existence. Having politicians in Washington dictate how sysadmins are supposed to regulate their private network traffic is insane. Media lobbies would have a field day influencing politicians to "regulate" torrent traffic. The fact is that ISPs are private organizations, and you only pay for an IP address on their private networks. They can regulate the traffic on their own networks however they wish.
P.S. You come off as more intelligent if you capitalize your sentences.
Are you implying that Slashdot shouldn't be posting about new versions of iOS? Why not?
First of all, I'd hardly call $5 for a complete development suite "greedy." For comparison, Visual Studio Ultimate costs $11,899. Second, Chris Lattner of Apple said that the charge is due to accounting rules which state that the product is new enough not to count as a free update. Apple has had to charge a couple of bucks for updates in the past for this reason.
I know you're being facetious, but what exactly is the basis for the premise that people who disagree with the way Apple does something are insulted and ridiculed? Even Apple fans constantly bitch about what Apple does. In fact, this change is due to customer demand, which means a lot of Apple fans made their voices known.
The accelerated major version number bumping is ridiculous. Google Chrome is only two years old, and it's already at version 10. In another two years, is it going to be at version 20? Will marketing droids decide that would make Chrome sound too old and decide to slow down the version numbers before then? Because all of this is driven by marketing.
Every app on the store that can access adult content has this warning.
What? They kept PowerPC compatibility for half a decade.
Man, Slashdot's community has gone to shit. The majority of the good posters left for Reddit, leaving behind assholes like you.
Because the Windows and Linux communities are so open-minded and independent.
How does stupid shit like this get modded up? What does P.T. Barnum have to do with the high resale value of a popular device? Do people on Slashdot really think they're more independent and insightful than other human beings? This place is one of the biggest collections of groupthink on the web.
Apple hardware in general have high resale value.
Dirty Percent by Gruber.
Remember when Slashdotters smugly predicted that the iPod mini would be a flop? Heh.
It's supposed to be an appliance device that doesn't require drivers and other maintenance upkeep. It's not going to support your USB memory keys, USB hard drives (you don't even deal with the filesystem in iOS), wired keyboards, mice, teledildonics, and other crap. You can use a wireless keyboard, you can plug-in a camera with a camera connector, and you can use peripherals that utilize Apple's connector port, but that's it.
If the customer was always right, everything would be free.
By "adjustable graphics settings," what you really mean is that developers are forced to support and test multiple GPUs, drivers, and operating systems, which is one of the reasons developers have embraced the static hardware configurations of game consoles.
Because the iPad doesn't do that. Next silly question.
A Slashdot poster calling other people sheep is pretty ironic.