No, you know what, you're right. Seriously, I'm not being sarcastic.
We should care about Benghazi if Benghazi refers to the terrorist attack against the US Consulate in 2011. But that's not actually what you give a shit about.
How about you get over Benghazi and her emails? You know the difference between those stories and Russia? The investigations were completed and found nothing.
If Russia is nothing, then let the investigations complete it and tell us so. Then you can bitch that we're not "over it".
I disagree that it's a technicality. I have a server, and on that server is content. I can access the content and you can't. I'm not violating NN.
Am I violating the rules of a common carrier when I don't pick up the phone if you (and only you, I love talking to everyone else) call?
Content providers and ISPs are as distinct your car and the road. For you to drive safely, both have to be properly made. That doesn't mean they should face the same regulations.
Maybe it goes without saying, but I didn't RTFA. The specifics of the issue don't really matter to me, because these are 2 of the largest companies ever, they can sort their own shit out.
The comparison with NN is what I take issue with. It confuses the issue, and the public, and frankly I think that is intentional.
FYI, I'm not "OK" with Google doing this. I think it smacks of anti-trust/restraint of trade, although IANAL so my opinion is meaningless.
But to conflate it with NN is to confuse the public about what NN is and what it is supposed to do. And IMO some people (not you) who are trying to conflate the 2 issues are doing it with the intent of damaging NN, not because they give a crap about Google's hypocrisy.
It may not have to do with Net Neutrality, but it is potentially anti-trust behavior...
Yes, I absolutely agree.
Honestly I think there is a concerted effort to conflate this issue with NN in order to confuse people about what NN is and further damage the idea in the mind of the public.
This is defeating the whole point of "net neutrality."
No it isn't. You don't have a right to access content if the content owner doesn't want you to. If you don't have an HBO Now account, you can't watch Game of Thrones. That doesn't violate Net Neutrality.
Slashdot Mirror
Almost everything in your comment is a big fat lie. The first thing you supposedly quoted from my comment:
Putin preferred Trump over Clinton.
I didn't say that. Why lie about something so trivial? Pathetic.
No, you know what, you're right. Seriously, I'm not being sarcastic.
We should care about Benghazi if Benghazi refers to the terrorist attack against the US Consulate in 2011. But that's not actually what you give a shit about.
Lol. This CBTS thing is hilarious. Tell me more, please! I need a good laugh.
How does all the golf factor in I wonder?
How about you get over Benghazi and her emails? You know the difference between those stories and Russia? The investigations were completed and found nothing.
If Russia is nothing, then let the investigations complete it and tell us so. Then you can bitch that we're not "over it".
I didn't say the ISS was a stupid program. :D
The F-35 does set a pathetically low bar for stupidity. We should have given bat bombs a second chance instead.
It is idiotic to complain that the roof is leaking when your house is swept away by a flood.
Shared science is innovation lost.
Wow. Just... Wow.
So... you're saying that you prefer Trump cutting the program that you admit is less stupid?
I disagree that it's a technicality. I have a server, and on that server is content. I can access the content and you can't. I'm not violating NN.
Am I violating the rules of a common carrier when I don't pick up the phone if you (and only you, I love talking to everyone else) call?
Content providers and ISPs are as distinct your car and the road. For you to drive safely, both have to be properly made. That doesn't mean they should face the same regulations.
NASA has spent about $70 billion (2010 USD) on the ISS total. You can probably take that outta petty cash at the Pentagon.
The F-35 has cost 10 International Space Stations...
I'm not hand-waving anything. I said I don't agree with what Google is doing, that doesn't mean they are violating NN.
If you can't understand that I don't know how much simpler I can make it.
Maybe it goes without saying, but I didn't RTFA. The specifics of the issue don't really matter to me, because these are 2 of the largest companies ever, they can sort their own shit out.
The comparison with NN is what I take issue with. It confuses the issue, and the public, and frankly I think that is intentional.
And it's a pretty dick move
I agree, and here's proof.
FYI, I'm not "OK" with Google doing this. I think it smacks of anti-trust/restraint of trade, although IANAL so my opinion is meaningless.
But to conflate it with NN is to confuse the public about what NN is and what it is supposed to do. And IMO some people (not you) who are trying to conflate the 2 issues are doing it with the intent of damaging NN, not because they give a crap about Google's hypocrisy.
I think this is the exact reason people who are anti-NN are conflating the two issues. They want the confusion.
The less the public understands NN, the more it just sounds like "burdensome regulation that stifles the free market".
I'm not going to say you're wrong, but I don't know that you're right either.
However, assuming you are correct, it would be an issue between Google and the content owners (by your definition), not Google and Amazon.
So it becomes about Intellectual Property, not NN.
It may not have to do with Net Neutrality, but it is potentially anti-trust behavior...
Yes, I absolutely agree.
Honestly I think there is a concerted effort to conflate this issue with NN in order to confuse people about what NN is and further damage the idea in the mind of the public.
It might most commonly refer to mean, but median and mode are also synonyms of average.
This is defeating the whole point of "net neutrality."
No it isn't. You don't have a right to access content if the content owner doesn't want you to. If you don't have an HBO Now account, you can't watch Game of Thrones. That doesn't violate Net Neutrality.
PS: Just to clarify, Google is being a dick. They're just not breaking NN.
I don't see what a content provider restricting access to their own content has to do with Net Neutrality.
I host a website. If I don't want you to access content on it, too bad. If I only let you access content on it using Internet Explorer 6, too bad.
I mean, it all depends on how you split the state up. Which is exactly how gerrymandering works.
However, the idea of splitting the state actually does benefit all Californians: it gives them better representation in the Senate.
The Earth is spinning on an axis, and it does get "flattened out" slightly, i.e. the Equator has a larger circumference than the Prime Meridian.
I thought that bills in Congress were to address a single item only.
Lol, let me know the last time that happened.
Yeah? You got a ROM of Persona 5 that runs on Raspberry Pi?