Edge most optimistically, with almost a forced smile, is at most a utility for the enterprise environment. Maybe.. it could be used for in-house browsing where the company can be sure everyone is on the same page. It would enable companies to leave Internet Explorer yet still make use of a built in browser.
Elsewise, Edge is so b*tt-ugly, who would use it? It looks like an poor rejected mediocre iPhone app that grew by stuffing its face and forced it's way onto the desktop. IE is much better looking. With IE you can even assign icons of your choice to the folders in Favorites. But Edge is ugly. It looks unpolished. It looks like a low quality "app". The arrows don't even look like graphics, they look like they were borrowed from the font bin. Ugly. Moreover, it's colourless and drab. Depressing to look at. A sad sad piece of software regardless of load times and javascript speed. And it's not intuitive - go to erase your history - they hide half the list. And if you expand it, it's rehidden when you go back the next time. Did I mention it's colourless? Colourless, drab and although I am an "up" person, I would imagine other people could get depressed by its drab colourless appearance. Drab, colourless, Edge.
You make a valid point -- I'm not necessary supporting regulation rather law making. And not even law making if the companies behave themselves (which doesn't seem to be the case).
Making it unlawful to substantively throttle one website's content over another's. No need for regulation, merely the power to prevent it if need be. So if Google should ever ask the wire operators to throttle another company's website, despite the billions and billions they have to pay for such a thing, the wire operators would have to refuse and continue to give all content and traffic a fair shake.
"switch to another ISP": impossible for the weak and the government is obliged to uphold the rights of the weak. Moreover, it doesn't protect the rights and website of, say, the young innovator. If the innovator's website is throttled behind the scenes because a jealous Google has, out of their billions and billions and billions, paid the wire operators to do so, and it take 30 seconds for the innovator's website to even begin loading? The innovator's chances are close to NIL besides divine intervention. Your other points are interesting. I especially like the decentralized business as the Internet was designed to operate decentralized to begin with instead of "piped". 'Have a nice weekend.
P.S. and even if you trust the CPU, mobo chips, the compiler, and that the source as published is the source used to compile -- how do you know some programmer didn't pull a tricky dickie in all those hundreds of thousands or millions of lines of code ??
As will all software, you don't know for sure.
1. Unless you compile it yourself, how do you know that the source code published on the website is the same that as was used to compile the software?
2. Even if you compile it yourself, did you write and compile your own compiler?
3. And modern CPUs run into a billion plus of transistors per chip. E.g. core count aside, a modern Intel CPU represents more than one computer. There's the main computer plus a second set of transistors organized into a second computer on their chips. These are complex systems. Most folks cannot know for sure what is running, period.
4. See?
5. And of course, the billion plus transistor chips we use (which are complex) are plugged into mobos with complex arrays of chips of their own./// We trust because we figure these companies have a vested interest in maintaining a reputation of integrity. Whether the source is open or closed is a moot point.
It was an analogy. What affects the Internet in the U.S. can affect folks elsewhere. So, for example, if the rules or lack thereof in the U.S. prevent an American innovator from succeeding, for instance, it could affect someone in Canada, for instance.
LOL I'm not entirely contrary to your sentiment. However, when it comes to the Internet - so far - the de facto gov't in Ottawa has been relatively good about it vis a vis human rights. Most judicial decisions have favoured free speech, unfettered use etc. Poor people aren't sued millions for their daughter's downloading of a few tunes.
But it is important to note - and in line with your sentiment - there have been folks who've suffered 'commissions' and 'tribunals' here. You'd have to have strength to stand up to them and tell them to go jump in a Great lake.
P.S. if you will: 'Net neutrality' as I think of it may or may not entail governments legislating, but it does mean fairness for those who put up websites. That no one web domain is preferred over another when it comes to the wires. That a big established company with its billions cannot pay the line operators to throttle out an innovator who is perceived as a potential competitor.
Somewhat like the road system. Your new innovative company, say, puts its trucks on the same road as Fed Ex does, with the same speeds and rules (and so on) as everyone else. Fed Ex can't use it's well established position and its collected billions to pay the road operator to have your trucks slowed or blocked. Moreover, both your new innovative company's trucks and Fed Ex's trucks have to respect the road rights of Ronnie Republican when he takes in his car on the road to go get a coffee at the BLM Leftist Cafe. The road's regulated, but it treats all comers the same way.
That's my notion of 'Net neutrality. I'm not keen on the regulation part, if it can stay neutral without that, good. But it should be fair, open, even etc. etc. neutral. Then everyone is free to innovate, think, prosper etc. on the thing without fear of being throttled by some paranoid jealous perhaps even greedy mega-corp.
"Think VERY carefully about what you're wishing for." Good point. It is certainly an issue that should be thought right through before any legislation - or no - is decided upon. Quick whips of the pen - Rep or Dem or otherwise - are probably not prudent enough for an issue that affects freedom, lives, fairness, prosperity, conscience, politics, religion etc. etc.
To some extent the ol' adage "money makes the world go 'round" is true. Non-profit efforts need go begging, while efforts wherein which profit is given at least some account do better. Open source often means spiralling under-cutting - which leads to no profit in sales and only perhaps some in technical support - which means someone sets up a free forum - at their own expense no less - and the users provide each other with technical support, cutting into any potential profit in technical support.
So those developing the non-profit software have to do other things with their time to get cash, so the projects gets shunted to the weekends, but after a couple years there are kids to take to practice and shopping and.. what were we talking about again?.. oh yeah, yeah, I submitted some code for that, a couple, no, a few years ago.
:o) Trading, prospering, being productive and the like is part of freedom. I have no issue with people working with the Internet, so long as it's on fair, open honest grounds. Moreover, just because an event occurs on the Internet is no excuse should it be some sort of defrauding or theft. So things being on the up and up, no one really should have issue either way, and you are free to do as you please, and you shouldn't need suffer fear of legitimate authorities. If not, if you act criminally towards your neighbour virtual or no, Internet or no, you should fear the authorities.
Hm.. you are bringing up the issue of why doesn't any and everyone get to set up their own grid. I think that is a different issue from the one of neutrality on the one existing grid that everyone has access to. Not that there aren't other network grids. There's Internet 2 etc., but most people can't hook into those. Most of us have only one inter-network which we can access. 'Net neutrality is about making sure that one grid operates in a fair, even, open, neutral manner and serves everyone, not just a few particular mega-corps.
:o) I beg to differ. The ISPs have long figured out data rates. If you want 'unlimited' you pay a handsome monthly fee, at least here. Otherwise, there are caps past which one is charged per GB. So I doubt that is the issue. If the wire isn't filled, it's under utilized. Once the capacity is built, it's no skin off their noses whether a bit flows down the wire or not save a comparative minuscule cost in electricity.
The Internet is trans-national. When the mainland China's communist gov't censors my article, it affects me, my feedback, perhaps even the proper formation of my opinion, not just those who are blocked from reading it.
Good point; but particular mega-corps aren't sitting idly. They are actively attempting to slice up the Internet, not to improve it (although speeds for their own particular sites and products might increase) but to ruin it and transform it into their own narrow vision, with fairness, openness, freedom, 'net neutrality and any potential innovative competition kicked to the curb, censored, and throttled to oblivion.
Yeah, but Obama is out of office now.
Besides, 'Net neutrality isn't all about commerce. It's also about freedom, speech writing and text, fairness, openess, not just in the U.S., but everywhere there's the Internet.
Well then, the regulators should put out a statement outlining what exactly is considered a free, open and fair Internet and mail or email it to those who operate the wires so they are well aware of expected behaviour. And should any unfair, censorial and/ or anti-competitive practice(s) arise at the wire level there would be cause legitimate to regulate according to that statement.
But everyone already has pretty much equal access to the roads though. If my new company wants to truck boxes to my new customers, I can get on the road just as sure and fairly as Fed Ex can. What the mega-corps want is for the road people to put up blocks that say only the big established companies can get though, while the upstarts still looking to make their first profits will either be grossly slowed or blocked.
So the consumer, even as you seem to be suggesting, would not be well served should the particular mega-corps get their way here, as competition, variety and lower prices would be stifled.
If what's brought about is truly 'Net neutrality, then yes there would be no issue. There shouldn't be any need for legislation to begin with. Just like there shouldn't be any need for a law that says 'don't steal' or 'don't defraud'. It's obvious. So if the Internet wire companies operate on the up 'n up, special requests and pay outs to favour the huge mega corps but throttle the innovators to death will be ignored and won't be an issue.
But the mega corps would try to throttle the smaller innovator and entrench their own positions by paying the wire operators. Some play both sides, e.g. Bell who both operate the wires and stream content. And Bell has moved hard - using the regulators - when it has suited Bell.
My phone call has always been a clear and instant as Her Majesty's phone call. No one interrupted it, not one made me wait. What the mega corps of today would want is for Google's phone calls to go through.. and the hard working innovator's call to be blocked.
'Net neutrality keeps open the possibility that competition could rise as alternative to Google. If Google were able use its untold billions to pay the companies that operate the Internet wires to throttle any upstart (i.e. slow access to the upstart's websites down while speeding access to google dot com up), then we have a not so good situation. The idea supporting 'Net neutrality is to keep the playing field level so that should some group decided to compete against Google, they'd have an honest shot at it.
Let's say you had a great idea. How would you like it if you found that the Internet wire companies deliberately slowed down access to your new site so that it took 30 seconds before it even started loading, and in turn used the saved bandwidth to speed up access to Google? Because Google paid them out of its billions and billions and billions and billions to crush any prospective competitor. It would be not good for healthy competition, not good for innovation, and not fair. A neutral 'Net is what we need for innovation, freedom, and healthy competition online.
Slashdot Mirror
Edge most optimistically, with almost a forced smile, is at most a utility for the enterprise environment. Maybe .. it could be used for in-house browsing where the company can be sure everyone is on the same page. It would enable companies to leave Internet Explorer yet still make use of a built in browser.
Elsewise, Edge is so b*tt-ugly, who would use it? It looks like an poor rejected mediocre iPhone app that grew by stuffing its face and forced it's way onto the desktop. IE is much better looking. With IE you can even assign icons of your choice to the folders in Favorites. But Edge is ugly. It looks unpolished. It looks like a low quality "app". The arrows don't even look like graphics, they look like they were borrowed from the font bin. Ugly. Moreover, it's colourless and drab. Depressing to look at. A sad sad piece of software regardless of load times and javascript speed. And it's not intuitive - go to erase your history - they hide half the list. And if you expand it, it's rehidden when you go back the next time. Did I mention it's colourless? Colourless, drab and although I am an "up" person, I would imagine other people could get depressed by its drab colourless appearance. Drab, colourless, Edge.
You make a valid point -- I'm not necessary supporting regulation rather law making. And not even law making if the companies behave themselves (which doesn't seem to be the case). Making it unlawful to substantively throttle one website's content over another's. No need for regulation, merely the power to prevent it if need be. So if Google should ever ask the wire operators to throttle another company's website, despite the billions and billions they have to pay for such a thing, the wire operators would have to refuse and continue to give all content and traffic a fair shake.
"switch to another ISP": impossible for the weak and the government is obliged to uphold the rights of the weak. Moreover, it doesn't protect the rights and website of, say, the young innovator. If the innovator's website is throttled behind the scenes because a jealous Google has, out of their billions and billions and billions, paid the wire operators to do so, and it take 30 seconds for the innovator's website to even begin loading? The innovator's chances are close to NIL besides divine intervention. Your other points are interesting. I especially like the decentralized business as the Internet was designed to operate decentralized to begin with instead of "piped". 'Have a nice weekend.
"Here" is across the Lakes and the St. Lawrence. Thanks for the reply and 'have a nice weekend.
P.S. and even if you trust the CPU, mobo chips, the compiler, and that the source as published is the source used to compile -- how do you know some programmer didn't pull a tricky dickie in all those hundreds of thousands or millions of lines of code ??
As will all software, you don't know for sure. 1. Unless you compile it yourself, how do you know that the source code published on the website is the same that as was used to compile the software? 2. Even if you compile it yourself, did you write and compile your own compiler? 3. And modern CPUs run into a billion plus of transistors per chip. E.g. core count aside, a modern Intel CPU represents more than one computer. There's the main computer plus a second set of transistors organized into a second computer on their chips. These are complex systems. Most folks cannot know for sure what is running, period. 4. See? 5. And of course, the billion plus transistor chips we use (which are complex) are plugged into mobos with complex arrays of chips of their own. /// We trust because we figure these companies have a vested interest in maintaining a reputation of integrity. Whether the source is open or closed is a moot point.
It was an analogy. What affects the Internet in the U.S. can affect folks elsewhere. So, for example, if the rules or lack thereof in the U.S. prevent an American innovator from succeeding, for instance, it could affect someone in Canada, for instance.
LOL I'm not entirely contrary to your sentiment. However, when it comes to the Internet - so far - the de facto gov't in Ottawa has been relatively good about it vis a vis human rights. Most judicial decisions have favoured free speech, unfettered use etc. Poor people aren't sued millions for their daughter's downloading of a few tunes. But it is important to note - and in line with your sentiment - there have been folks who've suffered 'commissions' and 'tribunals' here. You'd have to have strength to stand up to them and tell them to go jump in a Great lake.
P.S. if you will: 'Net neutrality' as I think of it may or may not entail governments legislating, but it does mean fairness for those who put up websites. That no one web domain is preferred over another when it comes to the wires. That a big established company with its billions cannot pay the line operators to throttle out an innovator who is perceived as a potential competitor. Somewhat like the road system. Your new innovative company, say, puts its trucks on the same road as Fed Ex does, with the same speeds and rules (and so on) as everyone else. Fed Ex can't use it's well established position and its collected billions to pay the road operator to have your trucks slowed or blocked. Moreover, both your new innovative company's trucks and Fed Ex's trucks have to respect the road rights of Ronnie Republican when he takes in his car on the road to go get a coffee at the BLM Leftist Cafe. The road's regulated, but it treats all comers the same way. That's my notion of 'Net neutrality. I'm not keen on the regulation part, if it can stay neutral without that, good. But it should be fair, open, even etc. etc. neutral. Then everyone is free to innovate, think, prosper etc. on the thing without fear of being throttled by some paranoid jealous perhaps even greedy mega-corp.
"Think VERY carefully about what you're wishing for." Good point. It is certainly an issue that should be thought right through before any legislation - or no - is decided upon. Quick whips of the pen - Rep or Dem or otherwise - are probably not prudent enough for an issue that affects freedom, lives, fairness, prosperity, conscience, politics, religion etc. etc.
To some extent the ol' adage "money makes the world go 'round" is true. Non-profit efforts need go begging, while efforts wherein which profit is given at least some account do better. Open source often means spiralling under-cutting - which leads to no profit in sales and only perhaps some in technical support - which means someone sets up a free forum - at their own expense no less - and the users provide each other with technical support, cutting into any potential profit in technical support. So those developing the non-profit software have to do other things with their time to get cash, so the projects gets shunted to the weekends, but after a couple years there are kids to take to practice and shopping and .. what were we talking about again? .. oh yeah, yeah, I submitted some code for that, a couple, no, a few years ago.
:o) Trading, prospering, being productive and the like is part of freedom. I have no issue with people working with the Internet, so long as it's on fair, open honest grounds. Moreover, just because an event occurs on the Internet is no excuse should it be some sort of defrauding or theft. So things being on the up and up, no one really should have issue either way, and you are free to do as you please, and you shouldn't need suffer fear of legitimate authorities. If not, if you act criminally towards your neighbour virtual or no, Internet or no, you should fear the authorities.
Hm .. you are bringing up the issue of why doesn't any and everyone get to set up their own grid. I think that is a different issue from the one of neutrality on the one existing grid that everyone has access to. Not that there aren't other network grids. There's Internet 2 etc., but most people can't hook into those. Most of us have only one inter-network which we can access. 'Net neutrality is about making sure that one grid operates in a fair, even, open, neutral manner and serves everyone, not just a few particular mega-corps.
:o) I beg to differ. The ISPs have long figured out data rates. If you want 'unlimited' you pay a handsome monthly fee, at least here. Otherwise, there are caps past which one is charged per GB. So I doubt that is the issue. If the wire isn't filled, it's under utilized. Once the capacity is built, it's no skin off their noses whether a bit flows down the wire or not save a comparative minuscule cost in electricity.
The Internet is trans-national. When the mainland China's communist gov't censors my article, it affects me, my feedback, perhaps even the proper formation of my opinion, not just those who are blocked from reading it.
IMHO, the people living in America are important.
Good point; but particular mega-corps aren't sitting idly. They are actively attempting to slice up the Internet, not to improve it (although speeds for their own particular sites and products might increase) but to ruin it and transform it into their own narrow vision, with fairness, openness, freedom, 'net neutrality and any potential innovative competition kicked to the curb, censored, and throttled to oblivion.
Yeah, but Obama is out of office now. Besides, 'Net neutrality isn't all about commerce. It's also about freedom, speech writing and text, fairness, openess, not just in the U.S., but everywhere there's the Internet.
You're right, it's not .. it's about 'Net neutality.
'And he has no one to answer to but his creator either, which frees him up to speak his mind honestly.
Well then, the regulators should put out a statement outlining what exactly is considered a free, open and fair Internet and mail or email it to those who operate the wires so they are well aware of expected behaviour. And should any unfair, censorial and/ or anti-competitive practice(s) arise at the wire level there would be cause legitimate to regulate according to that statement.
That's why the Internet wire should be - and should be kept - open, fair, and neutral for everyone who wants to make use of it.
But everyone already has pretty much equal access to the roads though. If my new company wants to truck boxes to my new customers, I can get on the road just as sure and fairly as Fed Ex can. What the mega-corps want is for the road people to put up blocks that say only the big established companies can get though, while the upstarts still looking to make their first profits will either be grossly slowed or blocked. So the consumer, even as you seem to be suggesting, would not be well served should the particular mega-corps get their way here, as competition, variety and lower prices would be stifled.
If what's brought about is truly 'Net neutrality, then yes there would be no issue. There shouldn't be any need for legislation to begin with. Just like there shouldn't be any need for a law that says 'don't steal' or 'don't defraud'. It's obvious. So if the Internet wire companies operate on the up 'n up, special requests and pay outs to favour the huge mega corps but throttle the innovators to death will be ignored and won't be an issue. But the mega corps would try to throttle the smaller innovator and entrench their own positions by paying the wire operators. Some play both sides, e.g. Bell who both operate the wires and stream content. And Bell has moved hard - using the regulators - when it has suited Bell. My phone call has always been a clear and instant as Her Majesty's phone call. No one interrupted it, not one made me wait. What the mega corps of today would want is for Google's phone calls to go through .. and the hard working innovator's call to be blocked.
'Net neutrality keeps open the possibility that competition could rise as alternative to Google. If Google were able use its untold billions to pay the companies that operate the Internet wires to throttle any upstart (i.e. slow access to the upstart's websites down while speeding access to google dot com up), then we have a not so good situation. The idea supporting 'Net neutrality is to keep the playing field level so that should some group decided to compete against Google, they'd have an honest shot at it. Let's say you had a great idea. How would you like it if you found that the Internet wire companies deliberately slowed down access to your new site so that it took 30 seconds before it even started loading, and in turn used the saved bandwidth to speed up access to Google? Because Google paid them out of its billions and billions and billions and billions to crush any prospective competitor. It would be not good for healthy competition, not good for innovation, and not fair. A neutral 'Net is what we need for innovation, freedom, and healthy competition online.