Comcast and Bittorrent? Did you read the article? I don't think you read the article.
Also, I thought net neutrality was supposed to treat everyone's comparable traffic that same and not to charge extra for preferred delivery of packets. Is there any evidence that Comcast is treating one type or one company's Bittorrent traffic differently than some other type? Are they charging someone extra for preferred delivery? I have not heard that allegation. Are you making it now?
I'm not sure what you're saying about deep packet inspection other than you seem to be offended that it exists. Does net neutrality prohibit it?
And Verizon has full discretion on what news it stores on its news servers. Are you saying net neutrality governs the precise operation of news servers at an ISP? I don't think it does.
It sounds like "I feel bad, therefore we should pass a law". Shouldn't you have to, at least, show some kind of harm and show precisely how the law would have prevented the specific harm?
I'm not understanding your argument, I guess.
QoS is really only useful to prioritize packets going in the same direction, and packets that really are timing sensitive. That's why I want to buy it for my VOIP packets between my branch offices.
If you have packets going to and from twenty different perimeter gateways, but colliding at central hubs, it won't help much to base QoS simply on source/destination. Prioritizing all the packets when someone is downloading a huge file might then break streaming audio arriving at the same hub. That's not really useful. That's why I want to pay extra. So my VOIP packets get priority. I wouldn't prioritize download packets. The ISP would presuambly offer me a service to just allow a certain amount of prioritized VOIP traffic on a connection from a well defined source and destination. I'd configure QoS for those packets and ask the ISP to honor it and use it. I'd pay an extra fee.
I still don't understand why this wouldn't work other than a claim that I'd try to cheat the ISP. They could simply cap the amount of QoS traffic and charge me for overages if I did.
Why wouldn't you use or discard the QoS information based on the source and/or destination of the packets?
If my company wants to use VOIP telephony between our branch offices and we want to pay extra for it to actually work right, but we don't want fully-private lines because it's wasteful and more expensive, then an ISP could offer us QoS on that basis. But they don't.
No. Clearly the point is that waiting a few years has caused many/some/zero problems -- depends on the answers to the question.
If there's no problem so far then waiting a few more years might not hurt. And we could have freedom until then and ISPs and taxpayers and governments could use their resources to do something besides maintaining and complying with a regulatory regime.
Some of us have been affected by this non-neutral network Who? Affected how?
I now have the "opportunity" to subscribe to my ISP's (sister division's) offerings (such as "digital home phone"! hah!), since I can no longer VoIP over my internet. Did you read the article? I don't think you read the article.
No net neutrality these past 5 years has meant... what exactly? What is the horrible problem we've all had to endure because the government hasn't forced ISPs (against their will) to operate in "the preferred way"?
"I want everyone in the world to behave in a precise (but poorly defined) way to suit my personal sensibilities. Why don't they? Any ideas on how to make it happen?"
Have you tried saying "please"? Other than that, I have no ideas. Maybe try to help people and solve problems instead of worrying about whether things are done exactly your way.
Sure. But that will fail often. Like 90% of the time. So it's best to try not to spend too much money or convince too many followers.
A large pilot project with more expensive (but discounted) laptops would clearly have been a good idea. You could still do the OLPC if the pilot project worked out. And you might not have spent as much and disappointed so many people if it failed.
engineers understand that it takes managers, PHB's, marketing, sales, and production staff to make it work Can you just build those things out of stuff you keep in your workshop?
I think the reason is that the OLPC was always a solution in search of a problem. It started out as "lets make a cheap laptop".
It didn't start out as someone going to schools and asking the people what they needed. It seems like the most reasonable course of action for a project like this is:
1. Go to the schools and listen. 2. If you still think that computers are the solution, bring some expensive ones into some places as a pilot project 3. If that is proven, then remove functionality from the expensive ones until they operate like the cheap ones 4. If they still prove useful then maybe decide to make the cheap ones
Did this happen? If it did and the cheap ones worked in prototype form but not in their final form, then the OLPC's problems can probably be solved. If not, then it was probably doomed from the start.
The "do something I think is cool and see if people like it" plan of action tends to lead to disappointment when people don't like it. The likelihood of disappointment is proportional to how cool you think the project is.
If you donated $150 per child to each of these classrooms, would they automatically use the money for OLPC laptops? What if they could get real, full-scale laptops and support discounted to $150? Would they buy them? My guess is that the answer is no in most cases. They'd buy the things they need instead.
My guess is that you think legalism is weighty in some profound way that might make a "legal" imprisonment more attractive to the prisoner than an "illegal" imprisonment. And you may (or may not) lack the ability to grasp that the guy being imprisoned might not see things that way and might make a choice based on his perceptions rather than yours.
Does anyone seriously believe that Kucinich is doing anything more than grandstanding? Did you notice that the "impeach" crowd seems completely fooled? What does this say about them?
Impeachment is the non-violent option... They want to imprison him after the impeachment. Just ask them. How is throwing someone in prison against their will "non violent"?
The alternative would be a violent action. And the fellow deciding whether he'll fight a war or be imprisoned gets to choose which one he prefers.
---
This is the same question for the ICC and other war-crimes tribunals too, BTW. If you want all wars to be fought to the last man, keep this kind of thing up.
When there's nothing to live for if you lose, then the only choice left is to desperately try to win at any cost.
Would you rather die for the side led by Bush, Cheney, and company? It's the guys on the losing side who'll do the dying. If Dennis Kucinich is your war leader, it's going to be a very short war.
You don't get it. Violence and war aren't an argument. You don't get to decide about violence or war by making rhetorical points and winning an Internet pissing contest.
War happens when someone attacks. Then you either fight or you lose and face the consequences. And the consequences will be really bad for you if you lose.
So folks need to decide whether to attack or not. And, again, your rhetorical talking-points aren't material to that decision. They're going to decide based on practical matters. Does war beat the alternative for them? What better alternatives are being offered? If the alternative is imprisonment, then that argues for war.
And you need to decide if you want that or not.
---
Whether it's "routine" enough to constitute a credible threat is really up to the side that attacks. This type of thing makes it more routine than before and a more credible threat than before.
I'm just telling you where the road ends. It's not my decision (or yours) how long that road is. You have to decide whether you really want to go that way or whether another way might be better.
If the President is going to be routinely impeached, arrested, and jailed during or after his term, why should any President ever allow another election? Wouldn't it be suicidal for him to do that?
This type of thing is a recipe for civil war. Consider whether you want that.
The next day, the press nicknamed him 'Elvis the Pelvis'. Many described his act by comparing it to a striptease. Jack Gould of The New York Times declared, "Mr. Presley has no discernible singing ability," while John Crosby of the New York Herald Tribune called Elvis "unspeakably untalented and vulgar." The criticism prompted parents, religious groups from the North and South, and the Parent-Teacher Association to condemn Elvis and rock 'n' roll music by associating both with juvenile delinquency. Elvis Article
What difference does it make if something is "likely" to get shut down by a government agency?
It matters if something is actually shut down. The answers on this "likely" poll are just a measure of the prejudice (in the dictionary sense of the word prejudice) of the people answering the question.
Where's the answer for "none of them should be shut down, but I prefer to keep an open mind and deal with reality rather than wallow in my own preconceptions about things that haven't happened yet"?
It's not about whether they are right or not. Anyone can predict rain every day and be right when it happens to rain. It's about whether we should listen to these people saying this or not. There's no reason to listen to someone predicting rain every day.
People making these kinds of claims should have a very high hurdle to jump to get noticed. A very large amount of skepticism is in order. I'm not seeing that in the reporting. News reporting seems to be destructive to basic understanding of the world's realities. The comments to the story provide a good counterpoint.
I'm surprised Google can do it at all. Removing the "u" from words like "color" is easy enough. But the hostile subtext in the Canadian niceness and politeness is hard for machines to render into American.
The further you get from the border, the harder it is to understand. Of course Canadians will deny it. But they'll do it politely.
Old people say "this new music or entertainment or technology is ruining the young". We fear this new thing.
If people were so smart before Google, they might remember when this was said about calculators and spell checkers and Elvis and moving pictures and electricity.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, I thought net neutrality was supposed to treat everyone's comparable traffic that same and not to charge extra for preferred delivery of packets. Is there any evidence that Comcast is treating one type or one company's Bittorrent traffic differently than some other type? Are they charging someone extra for preferred delivery? I have not heard that allegation. Are you making it now?
I'm not sure what you're saying about deep packet inspection other than you seem to be offended that it exists. Does net neutrality prohibit it?
And Verizon has full discretion on what news it stores on its news servers. Are you saying net neutrality governs the precise operation of news servers at an ISP? I don't think it does.
It sounds like "I feel bad, therefore we should pass a law". Shouldn't you have to, at least, show some kind of harm and show precisely how the law would have prevented the specific harm?
I still don't understand why this wouldn't work other than a claim that I'd try to cheat the ISP. They could simply cap the amount of QoS traffic and charge me for overages if I did.
Why wouldn't you use or discard the QoS information based on the source and/or destination of the packets?
If my company wants to use VOIP telephony between our branch offices and we want to pay extra for it to actually work right, but we don't want fully-private lines because it's wasteful and more expensive, then an ISP could offer us QoS on that basis. But they don't.
No. Clearly the point is that waiting a few years has caused many/some/zero problems -- depends on the answers to the question.
If there's no problem so far then waiting a few more years might not hurt. And we could have freedom until then and ISPs and taxpayers and governments could use their resources to do something besides maintaining and complying with a regulatory regime.
No net neutrality these past 5 years has meant ... what exactly? What is the horrible problem we've all had to endure because the government hasn't forced ISPs (against their will) to operate in "the preferred way"?
Short version:
"I want everyone in the world to behave in a precise (but poorly defined) way to suit my personal sensibilities. Why don't they? Any ideas on how to make it happen?"
Have you tried saying "please"? Other than that, I have no ideas. Maybe try to help people and solve problems instead of worrying about whether things are done exactly your way.
Sure. But that will fail often. Like 90% of the time. So it's best to try not to spend too much money or convince too many followers.
A large pilot project with more expensive (but discounted) laptops would clearly have been a good idea. You could still do the OLPC if the pilot project worked out. And you might not have spent as much and disappointed so many people if it failed.
I think the reason is that the OLPC was always a solution in search of a problem. It started out as "lets make a cheap laptop".
It didn't start out as someone going to schools and asking the people what they needed. It seems like the most reasonable course of action for a project like this is:
1. Go to the schools and listen.
2. If you still think that computers are the solution, bring some expensive ones into some places as a pilot project
3. If that is proven, then remove functionality from the expensive ones until they operate like the cheap ones
4. If they still prove useful then maybe decide to make the cheap ones
Did this happen? If it did and the cheap ones worked in prototype form but not in their final form, then the OLPC's problems can probably be solved. If not, then it was probably doomed from the start.
The "do something I think is cool and see if people like it" plan of action tends to lead to disappointment when people don't like it. The likelihood of disappointment is proportional to how cool you think the project is.
If you donated $150 per child to each of these classrooms, would they automatically use the money for OLPC laptops? What if they could get real, full-scale laptops and support discounted to $150? Would they buy them? My guess is that the answer is no in most cases. They'd buy the things they need instead.
I don't understand the distinction, no.
My guess is that you think legalism is weighty in some profound way that might make a "legal" imprisonment more attractive to the prisoner than an "illegal" imprisonment. And you may (or may not) lack the ability to grasp that the guy being imprisoned might not see things that way and might make a choice based on his perceptions rather than yours.
---
This is the same question for the ICC and other war-crimes tribunals too, BTW. If you want all wars to be fought to the last man, keep this kind of thing up.
When there's nothing to live for if you lose, then the only choice left is to desperately try to win at any cost.
You don't get it. Violence and war aren't an argument. You don't get to decide about violence or war by making rhetorical points and winning an Internet pissing contest.
War happens when someone attacks. Then you either fight or you lose and face the consequences. And the consequences will be really bad for you if you lose.
So folks need to decide whether to attack or not. And, again, your rhetorical talking-points aren't material to that decision. They're going to decide based on practical matters. Does war beat the alternative for them? What better alternatives are being offered? If the alternative is imprisonment, then that argues for war.
And you need to decide if you want that or not.
---
Whether it's "routine" enough to constitute a credible threat is really up to the side that attacks. This type of thing makes it more routine than before and a more credible threat than before.
I'm just telling you where the road ends. It's not my decision (or yours) how long that road is. You have to decide whether you really want to go that way or whether another way might be better.
And in that war, do you think you'll live longer on the side led by Dennis Kucinich?
If the President is going to be routinely impeached, arrested, and jailed during or after his term, why should any President ever allow another election? Wouldn't it be suicidal for him to do that?
This type of thing is a recipe for civil war. Consider whether you want that.
Opposition to Elvis was the same phenomenon though. "This is new, not like the old things I like. I don't understand it. Therefore, it's bad."
You sound like an adult. Does it sometimes feel lonely being the only adult?
What difference does it make if something is "likely" to get shut down by a government agency?
It matters if something is actually shut down. The answers on this "likely" poll are just a measure of the prejudice (in the dictionary sense of the word prejudice) of the people answering the question.
Where's the answer for "none of them should be shut down, but I prefer to keep an open mind and deal with reality rather than wallow in my own preconceptions about things that haven't happened yet"?
It's not about whether they are right or not. Anyone can predict rain every day and be right when it happens to rain. It's about whether we should listen to these people saying this or not. There's no reason to listen to someone predicting rain every day.
People making these kinds of claims should have a very high hurdle to jump to get noticed. A very large amount of skepticism is in order. I'm not seeing that in the reporting. News reporting seems to be destructive to basic understanding of the world's realities. The comments to the story provide a good counterpoint.
I'm surprised Google can do it at all. Removing the "u" from words like "color" is easy enough. But the hostile subtext in the Canadian niceness and politeness is hard for machines to render into American.
The further you get from the border, the harder it is to understand. Of course Canadians will deny it. But they'll do it politely.
This type of reasoning is based on the self-importance of the person doing the reasoning.
Old people say "this new music or entertainment or technology is ruining the young". We fear this new thing.
If people were so smart before Google, they might remember when this was said about calculators and spell checkers and Elvis and moving pictures and electricity.