You're right about one thing, the Internet isn't the problem.
Work isn't the problem either though, you're wrong about that.
American culture is shallow:
- Widespread prosperity shields people from the ordinary trials of life that build character and bring people together. - Peace deprives people of the bond of a common cause - Feminization weakens us by favoring consiliation and non-confrontationalism over resolve and steadfastness - Mass marketing eggagerates the importance of the trivial - Government policies have undermined the importance of families on dozens of fronts - Television entertainment is created by that vastly deep and meaningful Southern CA culture - News outlets no longer focus on telling the facts. They're now almost 100% emotion-based. - Sex has invaded every part of life. (i.e. "Those two guys sure are good friends, I wonder if they're gay? That old guy is being nice to those kids, I wonder if he's a child molester?") The only protection is to never be close to anyone. - Right and wrong have given way to "political awareness" tests. Say the right things and you're golden.
The result is that no one cares about anything any more because it's almost universally discouraged.
How can you make close friends without caring about them (or knowing that they won't care about you)? How can you trust people who don't understand right and wrong? How can you have a deep relationship with someone who has a 2 minute attention-span? How can you have a substantial friendship with someone who thinks that they have a right to be happy every minute of every day?
The Internet offers an arms-length social experience. No betrayal possible. No promised substance, so no disappointment when it's missing. No loss. No obligations. No risks. No rewards either, but you were going to get those anyway. It's socialization-lite.
If everyone demanded and paid extra for QoS than we'd all be getting the same service as before but paying more for it.
That's not how QoS systems or economies work. If everyone demanded and paid extra for QoS, then ISPs would install extra bandwidth to provide it so they could collect those extra payments.
No one would pay for a QoS system that didn't deliver.
So you can still buy QoS for various services over your connection, but you can't pay more to prioritize your particular traffic over their network, as opposed to your competitors' traffic, except inasmuch as you're paying for a faster connection than your competitors are.
That's not really how reasonable QoS systems work though. If packets can't be prioritized, then there is no QoS at all. I don't see much incentive for any provider to setup a "neutral" QoS system (i.e. ask for priority and be granted it "neutrally"). Everyone would be asking for the highest priority (preemptive, with guarenteed bandwidth reservations) all the time.
If you need a guaranteed quality of service between two particular points, you'll need to buy high-end connections at both ends anyway, net neutrality or none. If you've got a high-bandwidth line with QoS for video traffic, and I've got my dinky home DSL connection with no such QoS (other than what my ISP might apply standard), I'm not going to get the full quality of your full-screen streaming video feed.
That's what I thought.
Another possible technical way to go would be for me to me to ask your provider for priority in exchange for a fee. That would allow me to video-conference with you on your current connection because your provider and mine have collaborated to provide end-to-end QoS for an additional fee.
But we have to have net neutrality, so that whole range of services is basically illegal.
That's my technical objection to network neutrality.
If net neutrality passes, what if I need a connection with QoS (quality of service) for two-way video or VOIP communication?
In order to implement QoS in a workable way, my packets need priority. But if my packets need priority, that's not "neutral". And it seems like network neutrality is designed to prevent me from buying any kind of QoS from network providers.
But your ignorance of these workers' situation leaves you unequipped to judge their choices as genuine or not. I am in the same position - the difference is that I respect their choices.
Spoken by somebody with the privilege of a genuine (i.e. not Hobson's) choice.
That was my point. If the workers have a genuine choice, then whatever they decide should be respected and not second-guessed by people who are ignorant of those workers' lives.
A genuine choice is not the same as a choice between 2 good alternatives. Genuine choices can be sad ones. But those choices and the judgements involved belong to the people affected and no one else.
If their labor is involuntary, then that's a different story. (The fact that the workers are paid tends to indicate that this arrangement is voluntary, though it's not conclusive.)
Being better than the worst thing imaginable (death by starvation) does not make something good.
Here's the thing about that: It's not your call.
The individual worker himself decides whether the job is good. She decides for herself if it's better - enough better to keep showing up and working each day.
You think the job isn't good enough? Easy for you to say from halfway around the world, sitting in your comfortable chair in front of your computer, not living the lives these workers live. The workers who actually do the work at the factory and actually live their lives have made a different choice.
I think that choice should be respected, not ignorantly second-guessed to make myself feel better. People deserve to be allowed to live their own lives and make their own choices.
As long as the work is completely voluntary, the workers have decided that it beats the alternative. It's an improvement in their lives. Often times, a huge improvement - their families get enough to eat now. No one is doing anything wrong, and all the activity is mutually beneficial to all parties involved.
It also doesn't change the way the computers work.
Now I have to go back to drinking my coffee. It's fair trade, shade-grown coffee picked by virgin tribal girls under a full moon. Tasty.
Oh cool, Company X has designed a processor with a cool new feature that will make programs wayyyyy faster! Oh wait, there's that darn high level language, too bad it'll never be used.
The opposite is the real situation.
The interpreters (JIT compliers, or whatever) are "wayyyyy" more sophisticated than 99.9% of programs. If any piece of software is going to use a cool new processor feature, it's one of these interpreters.
In fact, since the interpreter knows about the cool new feature and the original programmer didn't (because the chip came out after programmer wrote the code), the interpreter is, in fact, the key to getting this feature exploited by the maximum amount of software.
No slaves? They seem to have thralls. And a fine selection of perpetual motion machines. Also the Ark of the Covenant. Somone must have a pretty big warehouse to hold all that stuff.
You mean your lie-infested, one-sided, governmental news?
Can you please site some news stories that point out that Iran is headed by completely level-headed folks? Can you link to the "Iran isn't trying to create nuclear weapons" news stories?
Seriously. Link to one. Even a completely silly, obviously made-up one. Anywhere. in any newspaper worldwide.
The U.S. isn't getting ready for nuclear holocaust any more...
The US population, it seems, isn't ready for any kind of serious event. Read the rest of the posts in this topic for an example.
Rather than trying to prevent a serious event or planning to deal with the consequences, the public view seems to be one of denial, fantasy, and conspiracy theories. Nothing bad can happen (denial). Diplomancy, disarmament, and environmental awareness will keep us safe (fantasy). And it's all about Haliburton anyway (conspiracy theories).
And it's expressed and reinforced by making fun of people who are just trying to be prepared. Bravo.
It's apparently going to take a few more attacks over several years for Americans to finish the process of growing up. I'm glad I don't live near any likely targets.
Did you know that whenever you touch anything with your hand, you leave a unique mark on the thing you touched? This mark can be examined to identify you and track where you've been! Everywhere you've been.
It's a privacy nightmare. Where's the ACLU on this?
you still haven't explain how you're going to undo this unfairness of Mexico being next door
Yes I have. Pay attention. Here it is for the 3rd time:
- Enforce the border to make it harder to immigrate illegally from Mexico. - Increase legal immigration to make it easier for immigrants from elsewhere.
The result should be a higher proportion of immigrants from places other than Mexico. I guess I don't know how much clearer it can get.
So you're saying that we should pay for their tickets over here?
No. They'll pay their own way knowing that when they get here, they can stay.
Someone from Mexico can just cross the border. If he gets caught, he can try again the next day. Someone from China has to go through the legal channels because China lacks a border with the US.
There's a limit to how many immigrants a society can support. There are only so many jobs. Enforcing the border and opening up legal opportunities will allow non-Mexicans a fair chance to immigrate if they want. That will be good for the US.
Slashdot Mirror
You're right about one thing, the Internet isn't the problem.
Work isn't the problem either though, you're wrong about that.
American culture is shallow:
- Widespread prosperity shields people from the ordinary trials of life that build character and bring people together.
- Peace deprives people of the bond of a common cause
- Feminization weakens us by favoring consiliation and non-confrontationalism over resolve and steadfastness
- Mass marketing eggagerates the importance of the trivial
- Government policies have undermined the importance of families on dozens of fronts
- Television entertainment is created by that vastly deep and meaningful Southern CA culture
- News outlets no longer focus on telling the facts. They're now almost 100% emotion-based.
- Sex has invaded every part of life. (i.e. "Those two guys sure are good friends, I wonder if they're gay? That old guy is being nice to those kids, I wonder if he's a child molester?") The only protection is to never be close to anyone.
- Right and wrong have given way to "political awareness" tests. Say the right things and you're golden.
The result is that no one cares about anything any more because it's almost universally discouraged.
How can you make close friends without caring about them (or knowing that they won't care about you)? How can you trust people who don't understand right and wrong? How can you have a deep relationship with someone who has a 2 minute attention-span? How can you have a substantial friendship with someone who thinks that they have a right to be happy every minute of every day?
The Internet offers an arms-length social experience. No betrayal possible. No promised substance, so no disappointment when it's missing. No loss. No obligations. No risks. No rewards either, but you were going to get those anyway. It's socialization-lite.
If we don't do something about it like yesterday, then we're all going to fucking die. As in extinct.
You certainly can't prove that.
In the unlikely situation that your business actually depends on you having guaranteed VOIP, I suggest you take out insurance against outages.
Apparently, the new hip way of dealing with technical challenges is with double-talk.
No one could ever use high-quality VOIP or video over public networks. No more than anyone would ever need more than 640K.
Anyway, QoS pretty much works only over a private network.
Indeed that's the case. It's not really a technical limitation though. It's a business issue.
I haven't read the bill, but it seems like network neutrality would make it illegal to solve this problem.
If everyone demanded and paid extra for QoS than we'd all be getting the same service as before but paying more for it.
That's not how QoS systems or economies work. If everyone demanded and paid extra for QoS, then ISPs would install extra bandwidth to provide it so they could collect those extra payments.
No one would pay for a QoS system that didn't deliver.
So you can still buy QoS for various services over your connection, but you can't pay more to prioritize your particular traffic over their network, as opposed to your competitors' traffic, except inasmuch as you're paying for a faster connection than your competitors are.
That's not really how reasonable QoS systems work though. If packets can't be prioritized, then there is no QoS at all. I don't see much incentive for any provider to setup a "neutral" QoS system (i.e. ask for priority and be granted it "neutrally"). Everyone would be asking for the highest priority (preemptive, with guarenteed bandwidth reservations) all the time.
If you need a guaranteed quality of service between two particular points, you'll need to buy high-end connections at both ends anyway, net neutrality or none. If you've got a high-bandwidth line with QoS for video traffic, and I've got my dinky home DSL connection with no such QoS (other than what my ISP might apply standard), I'm not going to get the full quality of your full-screen streaming video feed.
That's what I thought.
Another possible technical way to go would be for me to me to ask your provider for priority in exchange for a fee. That would allow me to video-conference with you on your current connection because your provider and mine have collaborated to provide end-to-end QoS for an additional fee.
But we have to have net neutrality, so that whole range of services is basically illegal.
That's my technical objection to network neutrality.
Question about Net Neutrality:
If net neutrality passes, what if I need a connection with QoS (quality of service) for two-way video or VOIP communication?
In order to implement QoS in a workable way, my packets need priority. But if my packets need priority, that's not "neutral". And it seems like network neutrality is designed to prevent me from buying any kind of QoS from network providers.
How is this a good thing?
What is a malonga gilderchuck? I spent about 20 minutes trying to find out yesterday.
Enough to buy good food and housing, pay for healthcare when needed.
For all 12 of my children?
Loganberry
How much is a living wage? Is it different if I'm single and live with 3 roommates? How about if I have 12 children (6 with "special needs")?
Should I expect to have to provide my employer with more work (or more valuable work) for the higher "living wage" I need for my family situation?
Because I thought I was supposed to get a "working wage" -- based on the value of my work.
Quick, someone find a coffee cloud.
Work for peanuts or die is not a genuine choice.
But your ignorance of these workers' situation leaves you unequipped to judge their choices as genuine or not. I am in the same position - the difference is that I respect their choices.
Spoken by somebody with the privilege of a genuine (i.e. not Hobson's) choice.
That was my point. If the workers have a genuine choice, then whatever they decide should be respected and not second-guessed by people who are ignorant of those workers' lives.
A genuine choice is not the same as a choice between 2 good alternatives. Genuine choices can be sad ones. But those choices and the judgements involved belong to the people affected and no one else.
If their labor is involuntary, then that's a different story. (The fact that the workers are paid tends to indicate that this arrangement is voluntary, though it's not conclusive.)
Being better than the worst thing imaginable (death by starvation) does not make something good.
Here's the thing about that: It's not your call.
The individual worker himself decides whether the job is good. She decides for herself if it's better - enough better to keep showing up and working each day.
You think the job isn't good enough? Easy for you to say from halfway around the world, sitting in your comfortable chair in front of your computer, not living the lives these workers live. The workers who actually do the work at the factory and actually live their lives have made a different choice.
I think that choice should be respected, not ignorantly second-guessed to make myself feel better. People deserve to be allowed to live their own lives and make their own choices.
Why should anyone care about this?
As long as the work is completely voluntary, the workers have decided that it beats the alternative. It's an improvement in their lives. Often times, a huge improvement - their families get enough to eat now. No one is doing anything wrong, and all the activity is mutually beneficial to all parties involved.
It also doesn't change the way the computers work.
Now I have to go back to drinking my coffee. It's fair trade, shade-grown coffee picked by virgin tribal girls under a full moon. Tasty.
Oh cool, Company X has designed a processor with a cool new feature that will make programs wayyyyy faster! Oh wait, there's that darn high level language, too bad it'll never be used.
The opposite is the real situation.
The interpreters (JIT compliers, or whatever) are "wayyyyy" more sophisticated than 99.9% of programs. If any piece of software is going to use a cool new processor feature, it's one of these interpreters.
In fact, since the interpreter knows about the cool new feature and the original programmer didn't (because the chip came out after programmer wrote the code), the interpreter is, in fact, the key to getting this feature exploited by the maximum amount of software.
No slaves? They seem to have thralls. And a fine selection of perpetual motion machines. Also the Ark of the Covenant. Somone must have a pretty big warehouse to hold all that stuff.
When you want to get away with something like this, there's one thing you can do that will greatly increase the change you'll succeed:
Don't tell anyone about it.
You mean your lie-infested, one-sided, governmental news?
Can you please site some news stories that point out that Iran is headed by completely level-headed folks? Can you link to the "Iran isn't trying to create nuclear weapons" news stories?
Seriously. Link to one. Even a completely silly, obviously made-up one. Anywhere. in any newspaper worldwide.
The U.S. isn't getting ready for nuclear holocaust any more...
The US population, it seems, isn't ready for any kind of serious event. Read the rest of the posts in this topic for an example.
Rather than trying to prevent a serious event or planning to deal with the consequences, the public view seems to be one of denial, fantasy, and conspiracy theories. Nothing bad can happen (denial). Diplomancy, disarmament, and environmental awareness will keep us safe (fantasy). And it's all about Haliburton anyway (conspiracy theories).
And it's expressed and reinforced by making fun of people who are just trying to be prepared. Bravo.
It's apparently going to take a few more attacks over several years for Americans to finish the process of growing up. I'm glad I don't live near any likely targets.
There's a much worse privacy concern.
Did you know that whenever you touch anything with your hand, you leave a unique mark on the thing you touched? This mark can be examined to identify you and track where you've been! Everywhere you've been.
It's a privacy nightmare. Where's the ACLU on this?
you still haven't explain how you're going to undo this unfairness of Mexico being next door
Yes I have. Pay attention. Here it is for the 3rd time:
- Enforce the border to make it harder to immigrate illegally from Mexico.
- Increase legal immigration to make it easier for immigrants from elsewhere.
The result should be a higher proportion of immigrants from places other than Mexico. I guess I don't know how much clearer it can get.
So you're saying that we should pay for their tickets over here?
No. They'll pay their own way knowing that when they get here, they can stay.
Someone from Mexico can just cross the border. If he gets caught, he can try again the next day. Someone from China has to go through the legal channels because China lacks a border with the US.
There's a limit to how many immigrants a society can support. There are only so many jobs. Enforcing the border and opening up legal opportunities will allow non-Mexicans a fair chance to immigrate if they want. That will be good for the US.
When, as a society, did we get the idea that when bad things happen to us somebody else should pick up the tab?
It happened when that attitude became profitable (as opposed to just a way to recoup a small part of your losses).