Nope, not kidding at all. Stop relying on the first numbers you can google up. On paper it looks like they do well, but with medical school debt loads approaching the value of a house and the amount of training they have to take to get there, a few more years to quadruple your salary is rational.
Your comment reflects typical uninformed bias against physician's incomes. Please remember that it takes the better part of a decade to go into practice and that it costs close to $200,000 to do it. When they start a practice they assume the same risk as any entrepreneur. There is also the additional risk of medical liability, insurance against which (in our overly litigious society where too many lawyers and the temptation of "free" money rule) costs tens of thousands of dollars annually (some specialties like obstetrics cost over $100k/year - they get sued for birth defects even when mom downs a 6 pack of bud every day). Most physicians I know work very, very hard. In order to actually get paid, they need to spend a ludicrous amount of time filing and following up on insurance claims, many of which get arbitrarily rejected or returned for minor administrative details. Sound like fun? Then remember that they provide indispensable life-saving services to everyone.
ASK a family physician what life is like, if it's better or worse than it used to be, and what the future looks like. Physicians generally represent some of the best and brightest in any society and they don't do it for the love of money - nobody would suffer the grind for money alone. There are far too many easier ways to make far more money. If they can't make a good living, what exactly is the incentive to go into family practice?
US law schools churn out far more lawyers than we need, yet we have a looming shortage of family physicians since the insurance companies (i.e. their employers) don't want to be bothered actually paying them. The average salary for non-ivy league lawyers is far lower than you might think, particularly if you exclude the hapless drones working at the big lawsuit factories.
We will be able to do without lawyers once we can all agree to make and abide by the rules rationally, i.e never. We COULD do with fewer lawyers which could happen but probably won't.
I'd suggest we would do better with a major reform of the health insurance industry so every doctor doesn't feel compelled to specialize in order to make their investment of time and effort to become doctors (which is far more difficult than in law) pay off.
I stopped worrying about this stuff-people will believe what they want and you rarely change minds by arguing. The Catholic church takes the view that "Science is the study of God's creation". Why even bother arguing? In the end all you can do is trade assertions that there is or is not a God. It's a perfectly reasonable concept for people with religious beliefs. In fact it's good enough to completely co-opt the entire creationist/ID thing, which amuses me. Fight fire with fire.
I don't have the head for that kind of thing & was never any good at math, chemistry, programming & the like. I'm better with my hands, which is why I went into dentistry. One of our biochem instructors was a dyed in the wool creationist whom I can quote as saying "this stuff is far too complex and elegant to have happened by accident". She was nice person, a good teacher and she didn't press her views in class so I let it slide but BOY did that surprise me.
I took O-chem as a prereq for dental school. O-chem was the ONLY course that required as much effort as the first year of professional school - the first year of any professional program is typically overloaded to wash out the people that didn't deserve to be there.
Biochem ranks as the most difficult (for me) class I ever took (1st year dental school). I remember the instructor getting a standing ovation for flawlessly reciting through phosphorolation, which was like "peter piper picked a peck..." except far worse. Another weed-out was Pharmacy - it had a large section called the "bug parade" in which we were forced to memorize which antibiotic worked against which bug. This *is* relevant, but in practice you get your information from current literature. These courses were good for weeding out idiots, but I can't say I remember any of the crap we were forced to temporarily memorize, nor does it ever really come into use.
There are some doctors who got their degrees simply by being good at going to school and passing tests. Plenty of docs are basically idiots, but not in a way that would have caused them to fail - people good at details but who miss the big picture. I can't really say I know of a way to weed those people out or even if they should be. Each step along the way serves it's purpose.
The bottom line is that professional programs *evolved* to their current form for a reason and radical reorganization is a recipe for disaster.
Probably true. I didn't rtfa but last I heard, being "vexatious" was not a crime, except to tyrants.
It's truly funny that all Ray does is point out the legal absurdities in their activities and they respond with yet another absurdity. This is a classic case of a big moneyed interest abusing the legal system against people who can't afford to defend themselves. From another perspective you might call it racketeering.
I think you are correct. There are plenty of bastards who would gladly get rich by ripping everyone off an don't care if the economy crashed because they got rich. Some of them run investment banks. Even if you force the banks to be smaller, it was the general practice of giving mortgages to people who couldn't afford them that caused the current crisis. Hell, that's why they're called "subprime", but the practice was industry wide.
The government will change the rules to try to tighten things up and in a way this is an evolutionary process. Then more greedy bastards will find loopholes to exploit and will do so until there is political will to stop them. Usually the political will only materializes after a major crisis, so there you go. Lather, rinse, repeat.
I'd agree, but to allow these banks and insurers to go under would result in a massive cascade of bankruptcies that would plunge the entire world economy into a depression, forcing people out of their homes and out of their jobs. Then we'd see the re-emergence and re-popularisation of radical politics like fascism and communism. There's a good chance we would end up in another war, possibly a big one since that's what happened after the great depression of the 1930's.
So although I agree in principle, I'd rather see a bailout.
To clarify, I try to buy directly from the band at shows or their website. I would rather buy from a "middleman" knowing that at least some fraction of the price is going to the artist rather than simply download from a torrent. Simply sending the band money directly is not something I'd ever do. I'm not wealthy enough to be a patron of the arts. None of them ever sent me money.
Paul Bremer, who was appointed by Bush to act as the interim head of Iraq prior to restoration of Iraqi sovereignty, dissolved the Iraqi army and police in May 2003 due to concerns that the influence of the Ba'ath party would be impossible to remove. The "self-disbanding" you refer to was likely due to CIA leaflets instructing them to do exactly as you describe, though it was not widely known at the time.
Gain of a democratic ally in the middle east is certainly a boon to US foreign policy; it's not clear how this ties into my prior comments since I never mentioned it. Although I agree with the concept it remains to be seen how much the US can actually benefit from it.
Your racist and offensive references to the post-Katrina disaster show why you post as an A/C. Bobby Jindal, the current Republican governor in LA, has certainly stepped up to show how disaster management should be done, and although he did have the benefit of all the reforms made in the post-Katrina era, his decisive actions show how competent local leadership can make up for many failings.
Yup, there's a serious lack of perspective in the debate about Iraq. I didn't know that particular statistic about Meuse-Argonne so thanks for the heads up - that meat-grinder of a war gets far too little attention & my grandfather was a doughboy.
I tend to prefer to pull out civil war stats in discussions like this specifically because they didn't have automatic weapons or even cartridges. Frankly the thought of that much slaughter occurring one shot at a time gives me chills. It's easier to understand mass slaughter with machine guns, ya know?
The troops in Iraq are getting a raw deal. I know quite a few. The main thing they've been saying for YEARS is that the media has it all wrong and lot of progress is being made. It's clear that the brass blew it by standing down the Iraqi police and military, among other things. Thankfully clear thinking by Gen. Petraeus finally got them to pull their heads out of the sand. I guess Vietnam didn't make as big an impression as we thought - but then again the media and the lefties aren't happy unless we're losing.
"Personally I was in favor of kicking Saddam out, however when in the first few days of the war the US disbanded ALL of Iraq's existing military and civil institutions, I knew they had stepped into quicksand."
What the hell WERE they thinking? New Orleans went to hell within days of Katrina. Remember the blackout riots in New York? What made them think an entire country could exist without a police force? GOD it still pisses me off to think about it. We could have been out by now with thousands of soldiers lives saved if they had been smarter about it. Fuck people like Saddam but that was the height of stupidity.
I still buy cd's from bands I like. I know most of the money doesn't go to the artist, but at least some does. I do it because that way I always have a master copy from which I can re-rip high quality mp3's as needed. If I could download low quality mp3's available for promotional purposes, I'd download all the time, then I'd buy cd's of the bands I like and perhaps see them live. If they make me look at a few banner ads or whatever to get the free mp3's, so what? I'd RATHER do it legally than illegally. I sincerely doubt the artists would care about a system like this.
Problem is, the labels are too in love with the money they used to get to let it go so easily. The movie industry could start distributing free or at least very cheap downloadable copies with commercials cut in. I'd still go the the theater at least some of the time - it's fun. Most people would probably treat it like TV and let the ads play, but again the studios are too in love with $15 tickets to do it. Greed sucks.
If it works, does it matter? The US military has mostly been very good with the use of disinformation over the years. Plenty of reason to be very skeptical of any story about this.
They have obviously figured out how to leverage some technology. Whether it's this or some other method it appears to be working. It could be a less advanced system being used in a new way, or it could be a more advanced system that hasn't been disclosed. They get the coolest toys first.
The best part is that this will allow them to seriously reduce US military presence in Iraq and finally finish the job in Afghanistan. It seriously pissed me off that they would screw up in Iraq for so long, getting so many people killed in the process. These new techniques will go into standard practice and hopefully make any future operations easier and faster.
AFAIK the newer developments do exactly this. When Verizon put FIOS cables up on the poles in our old construction neighborhood, there really wasn't that much involved - one cable going into a box about 12" tall with a dozen ports on the face. Still, I'd rather see this crap underground than have to look at the tangle of wires hanging from the poles.
"I can understand that some people might be interested in finding a reason and a purpose behind everything, but that's not everyone's case."
That's fine for you. Some people believe their lives aren't pointless biochemical reactions playing out on a canvas of larger physical processes. In many ways, the "how" is irrelevant to everyday life, but a framework of morals and values within which to govern your behavior is extremely relevant. Although it isn't strictly necessary to tie a moral framework to a deity, it *works* for many people, in part because human brains are hard-wired for community. Poke the correct part of the brain with an electrode and you feel connected to God and the universe - it's been done. Belief in God is a natural extension of understanding that the individual is a part of something larger and more important than self. The Christian concept of self-sacrifice for the good of the community as personified by Jesus Christ is a perfect example. In this context it's not even necessary for a religious "God" to actually be tied to the creation of the universe - it's irrelevant to everyday life. People are self-aware organisms driven largely by emotions but possess an ability to reason. An framework for explaining and governing existence is handy so the community members don't each have to re-invent the wheel (so to speak) when it comes to figuring out what an individual should be doing. The message is that the individual's needs are often less important than the community. Frankly I didn't grasp the importance of this until I had a family and my own needs became less important than those of my children. After a lifetime of trying and failing to fulfill my needs, it wasn't until I stopped worrying about myself and became devoted to something larger and more important than myself that I discovered my needs were already met. It's a human thing.
"Ah, the age-old argument, convincing as ever. Don't you find it kind of depressing to think that it's only the threat of spending an eternity in hell that prevents you from acting like a savage beast?"
I would point out that at no point did I invoke the threat of punishment in hell. I merely pointed out that morality has nothing to do with science. A criminal in prison might SAY he's religious, but it doesn't mean he PRACTICES his religion. Examining your beliefs and putting them into practice in everyday life is the key element - otherwise it's just words.
Don't you find it kind of depressing that threat of imprisonment or death is the only thing that prevents you from acting like a savage beast?
Are you saying all republicans are religious, or that no non-republicans are religious, or are you saying that all religious people are republicans or that all non-religious people are non-republicans? I could go on and on about this one but I think you get the idea. Please clarify.
Which part of religion is obsolete due to science? Assuming that you are referring to Christianity, is it the "do unto others" bit? Or perhaps science has shown that "Thou shalt not kill", etc., can be safely ignored? Christianity as I understand it (with special thanks to Douglas Adams) is largely about a guy that got nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be if everyone was nice to one another. In that context are you saying that being nice to one another is right out?
The Catholic church has largely embraced science as a way of understanding "God's creation", which seems rather unique with regards to major religions, although I could be wrong. Science, as I understand it, can tell us the "how" but never the "why" with regards to the fundamental question of the reason for existence. I wasn't aware that "How" in and of itself was adequate.
But, since you've been so persuasive about science supplanting religion I suppose I'd better finish sharpening my carving knives so I can start murdering, raping and pillaging, since moral consequences are no longer relevant. By the way, what's your address?
I like your idea for guaranteed and best effort. Instead of forcing people to pay more for performance, give them a chance to pay less for reduced priority.
One would think YouTube would know by now. They do have to walk a fine line, since they need to keep the content owners happy in order to continue operating, but since when is a religion protected content? I'd love to see someone file a countersuit.
The ironic thing about net neutrality is that in order for any package-based traffic management scheme to work, you would have to slow down the packets for big video and audio file. These are the same files that big media hopes will bring in the profit. Throttling/. posts or granny's ancestry.com searches will do nothing to improve overall traffic speed.
Bottom line is you would have to make people pay MORE in order to waste bandwidth downloading the content big media has to sell. This would make downloading legal content less attractive, forcing people to download illegal encrypted content that wouldn't get picked up by the filters - and I'm positive someone will come up with a way to fool the filters.
Problem not solved!
Even more ironically, Comcast's decision to throttle bittorrent traffic actually sounds logical in this context.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope, not kidding at all. Stop relying on the first numbers you can google up. On paper it looks like they do well, but with medical school debt loads approaching the value of a house and the amount of training they have to take to get there, a few more years to quadruple your salary is rational.
Your comment reflects typical uninformed bias against physician's incomes. Please remember that it takes the better part of a decade to go into practice and that it costs close to $200,000 to do it. When they start a practice they assume the same risk as any entrepreneur. There is also the additional risk of medical liability, insurance against which (in our overly litigious society where too many lawyers and the temptation of "free" money rule) costs tens of thousands of dollars annually (some specialties like obstetrics cost over $100k/year - they get sued for birth defects even when mom downs a 6 pack of bud every day). Most physicians I know work very, very hard. In order to actually get paid, they need to spend a ludicrous amount of time filing and following up on insurance claims, many of which get arbitrarily rejected or returned for minor administrative details. Sound like fun? Then remember that they provide indispensable life-saving services to everyone.
ASK a family physician what life is like, if it's better or worse than it used to be, and what the future looks like. Physicians generally represent some of the best and brightest in any society and they don't do it for the love of money - nobody would suffer the grind for money alone. There are far too many easier ways to make far more money. If they can't make a good living, what exactly is the incentive to go into family practice?
I initially read this as "Pantera".
US law schools churn out far more lawyers than we need, yet we have a looming shortage of family physicians since the insurance companies (i.e. their employers) don't want to be bothered actually paying them. The average salary for non-ivy league lawyers is far lower than you might think, particularly if you exclude the hapless drones working at the big lawsuit factories.
We will be able to do without lawyers once we can all agree to make and abide by the rules rationally, i.e never. We COULD do with fewer lawyers which could happen but probably won't.
I'd suggest we would do better with a major reform of the health insurance industry so every doctor doesn't feel compelled to specialize in order to make their investment of time and effort to become doctors (which is far more difficult than in law) pay off.
I stopped worrying about this stuff-people will believe what they want and you rarely change minds by arguing. The Catholic church takes the view that "Science is the study of God's creation". Why even bother arguing? In the end all you can do is trade assertions that there is or is not a God. It's a perfectly reasonable concept for people with religious beliefs. In fact it's good enough to completely co-opt the entire creationist/ID thing, which amuses me. Fight fire with fire.
Phosphorylation *is* cool; don't hide geek pride!
I don't have the head for that kind of thing & was never any good at math, chemistry, programming & the like. I'm better with my hands, which is why I went into dentistry. One of our biochem instructors was a dyed in the wool creationist whom I can quote as saying "this stuff is far too complex and elegant to have happened by accident". She was nice person, a good teacher and she didn't press her views in class so I let it slide but BOY did that surprise me.
I took O-chem as a prereq for dental school. O-chem was the ONLY course that required as much effort as the first year of professional school - the first year of any professional program is typically overloaded to wash out the people that didn't deserve to be there.
Biochem ranks as the most difficult (for me) class I ever took (1st year dental school). I remember the instructor getting a standing ovation for flawlessly reciting through phosphorolation, which was like "peter piper picked a peck..." except far worse. Another weed-out was Pharmacy - it had a large section called the "bug parade" in which we were forced to memorize which antibiotic worked against which bug. This *is* relevant, but in practice you get your information from current literature. These courses were good for weeding out idiots, but I can't say I remember any of the crap we were forced to temporarily memorize, nor does it ever really come into use.
There are some doctors who got their degrees simply by being good at going to school and passing tests. Plenty of docs are basically idiots, but not in a way that would have caused them to fail - people good at details but who miss the big picture. I can't really say I know of a way to weed those people out or even if they should be. Each step along the way serves it's purpose.
The bottom line is that professional programs *evolved* to their current form for a reason and radical reorganization is a recipe for disaster.
Probably true. I didn't rtfa but last I heard, being "vexatious" was not a crime, except to tyrants.
It's truly funny that all Ray does is point out the legal absurdities in their activities and they respond with yet another absurdity. This is a classic case of a big moneyed interest abusing the legal system against people who can't afford to defend themselves. From another perspective you might call it racketeering.
Vex on, Ray.
I think you are correct. There are plenty of bastards who would gladly get rich by ripping everyone off an don't care if the economy crashed because they got rich. Some of them run investment banks. Even if you force the banks to be smaller, it was the general practice of giving mortgages to people who couldn't afford them that caused the current crisis. Hell, that's why they're called "subprime", but the practice was industry wide.
The government will change the rules to try to tighten things up and in a way this is an evolutionary process. Then more greedy bastards will find loopholes to exploit and will do so until there is political will to stop them. Usually the political will only materializes after a major crisis, so there you go. Lather, rinse, repeat.
I'd agree, but to allow these banks and insurers to go under would result in a massive cascade of bankruptcies that would plunge the entire world economy into a depression, forcing people out of their homes and out of their jobs. Then we'd see the re-emergence and re-popularisation of radical politics like fascism and communism. There's a good chance we would end up in another war, possibly a big one since that's what happened after the great depression of the 1930's.
So although I agree in principle, I'd rather see a bailout.
To clarify, I try to buy directly from the band at shows or their website. I would rather buy from a "middleman" knowing that at least some fraction of the price is going to the artist rather than simply download from a torrent. Simply sending the band money directly is not something I'd ever do. I'm not wealthy enough to be a patron of the arts. None of them ever sent me money.
Paul Bremer, who was appointed by Bush to act as the interim head of Iraq prior to restoration of Iraqi sovereignty, dissolved the Iraqi army and police in May 2003 due to concerns that the influence of the Ba'ath party would be impossible to remove. The "self-disbanding" you refer to was likely due to CIA leaflets instructing them to do exactly as you describe, though it was not widely known at the time.
Gain of a democratic ally in the middle east is certainly a boon to US foreign policy; it's not clear how this ties into my prior comments since I never mentioned it. Although I agree with the concept it remains to be seen how much the US can actually benefit from it.
Your racist and offensive references to the post-Katrina disaster show why you post as an A/C. Bobby Jindal, the current Republican governor in LA, has certainly stepped up to show how disaster management should be done, and although he did have the benefit of all the reforms made in the post-Katrina era, his decisive actions show how competent local leadership can make up for many failings.
Yup, there's a serious lack of perspective in the debate about Iraq. I didn't know that particular statistic about Meuse-Argonne so thanks for the heads up - that meat-grinder of a war gets far too little attention & my grandfather was a doughboy.
I tend to prefer to pull out civil war stats in discussions like this specifically because they didn't have automatic weapons or even cartridges. Frankly the thought of that much slaughter occurring one shot at a time gives me chills. It's easier to understand mass slaughter with machine guns, ya know?
The troops in Iraq are getting a raw deal. I know quite a few. The main thing they've been saying for YEARS is that the media has it all wrong and lot of progress is being made. It's clear that the brass blew it by standing down the Iraqi police and military, among other things. Thankfully clear thinking by Gen. Petraeus finally got them to pull their heads out of the sand. I guess Vietnam didn't make as big an impression as we thought - but then again the media and the lefties aren't happy unless we're losing.
Hey, don't forget Gettysburg - or many other civil war battles. Fought with single shot muzzle loaders - think about it, because it's scary.
"Personally I was in favor of kicking Saddam out, however when in the first few days of the war the US disbanded ALL of Iraq's existing military and civil institutions, I knew they had stepped into quicksand."
What the hell WERE they thinking? New Orleans went to hell within days of Katrina. Remember the blackout riots in New York? What made them think an entire country could exist without a police force? GOD it still pisses me off to think about it. We could have been out by now with thousands of soldiers lives saved if they had been smarter about it. Fuck people like Saddam but that was the height of stupidity.
I still buy cd's from bands I like. I know most of the money doesn't go to the artist, but at least some does. I do it because that way I always have a master copy from which I can re-rip high quality mp3's as needed. If I could download low quality mp3's available for promotional purposes, I'd download all the time, then I'd buy cd's of the bands I like and perhaps see them live. If they make me look at a few banner ads or whatever to get the free mp3's, so what? I'd RATHER do it legally than illegally. I sincerely doubt the artists would care about a system like this.
Problem is, the labels are too in love with the money they used to get to let it go so easily. The movie industry could start distributing free or at least very cheap downloadable copies with commercials cut in. I'd still go the the theater at least some of the time - it's fun. Most people would probably treat it like TV and let the ads play, but again the studios are too in love with $15 tickets to do it. Greed sucks.
If it works, does it matter? The US military has mostly been very good with the use of disinformation over the years. Plenty of reason to be very skeptical of any story about this.
They have obviously figured out how to leverage some technology. Whether it's this or some other method it appears to be working. It could be a less advanced system being used in a new way, or it could be a more advanced system that hasn't been disclosed. They get the coolest toys first.
The best part is that this will allow them to seriously reduce US military presence in Iraq and finally finish the job in Afghanistan. It seriously pissed me off that they would screw up in Iraq for so long, getting so many people killed in the process. These new techniques will go into standard practice and hopefully make any future operations easier and faster.
AFAIK the newer developments do exactly this. When Verizon put FIOS cables up on the poles in our old construction neighborhood, there really wasn't that much involved - one cable going into a box about 12" tall with a dozen ports on the face. Still, I'd rather see this crap underground than have to look at the tangle of wires hanging from the poles.
"I can understand that some people might be interested in finding a reason and a purpose behind everything, but that's not everyone's case."
That's fine for you. Some people believe their lives aren't pointless biochemical reactions playing out on a canvas of larger physical processes. In many ways, the "how" is irrelevant to everyday life, but a framework of morals and values within which to govern your behavior is extremely relevant. Although it isn't strictly necessary to tie a moral framework to a deity, it *works* for many people, in part because human brains are hard-wired for community. Poke the correct part of the brain with an electrode and you feel connected to God and the universe - it's been done. Belief in God is a natural extension of understanding that the individual is a part of something larger and more important than self. The Christian concept of self-sacrifice for the good of the community as personified by Jesus Christ is a perfect example. In this context it's not even necessary for a religious "God" to actually be tied to the creation of the universe - it's irrelevant to everyday life. People are self-aware organisms driven largely by emotions but possess an ability to reason. An framework for explaining and governing existence is handy so the community members don't each have to re-invent the wheel (so to speak) when it comes to figuring out what an individual should be doing. The message is that the individual's needs are often less important than the community. Frankly I didn't grasp the importance of this until I had a family and my own needs became less important than those of my children. After a lifetime of trying and failing to fulfill my needs, it wasn't until I stopped worrying about myself and became devoted to something larger and more important than myself that I discovered my needs were already met. It's a human thing.
"Ah, the age-old argument, convincing as ever. Don't you find it kind of depressing to think that it's only the threat of spending an eternity in hell that prevents you from acting like a savage beast?"
I would point out that at no point did I invoke the threat of punishment in hell. I merely pointed out that morality has nothing to do with science. A criminal in prison might SAY he's religious, but it doesn't mean he PRACTICES his religion. Examining your beliefs and putting them into practice in everyday life is the key element - otherwise it's just words.
Don't you find it kind of depressing that threat of imprisonment or death is the only thing that prevents you from acting like a savage beast?
...and when it's found it will be in a low light area where both colors are shades of gray.
Are you saying all republicans are religious, or that no non-republicans are religious, or are you saying that all religious people are republicans or that all non-religious people are non-republicans? I could go on and on about this one but I think you get the idea. Please clarify.
Which part of religion is obsolete due to science? Assuming that you are referring to Christianity, is it the "do unto others" bit? Or perhaps science has shown that "Thou shalt not kill", etc., can be safely ignored? Christianity as I understand it (with special thanks to Douglas Adams) is largely about a guy that got nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be if everyone was nice to one another. In that context are you saying that being nice to one another is right out?
The Catholic church has largely embraced science as a way of understanding "God's creation", which seems rather unique with regards to major religions, although I could be wrong. Science, as I understand it, can tell us the "how" but never the "why" with regards to the fundamental question of the reason for existence. I wasn't aware that "How" in and of itself was adequate.
But, since you've been so persuasive about science supplanting religion I suppose I'd better finish sharpening my carving knives so I can start murdering, raping and pillaging, since moral consequences are no longer relevant. By the way, what's your address?
I like your idea for guaranteed and best effort. Instead of forcing people to pay more for performance, give them a chance to pay less for reduced priority.
One would think YouTube would know by now. They do have to walk a fine line, since they need to keep the content owners happy in order to continue operating, but since when is a religion protected content? I'd love to see someone file a countersuit.
Yep. They could always just jam a wireless signal, too. No way around it.
The ironic thing about net neutrality is that in order for any package-based traffic management scheme to work, you would have to slow down the packets for big video and audio file. These are the same files that big media hopes will bring in the profit. Throttling /. posts or granny's ancestry.com searches will do nothing to improve overall traffic speed.
Bottom line is you would have to make people pay MORE in order to waste bandwidth downloading the content big media has to sell. This would make downloading legal content less attractive, forcing people to download illegal encrypted content that wouldn't get picked up by the filters - and I'm positive someone will come up with a way to fool the filters.
Problem not solved!
Even more ironically, Comcast's decision to throttle bittorrent traffic actually sounds logical in this context.
Looking to the future, a long-ranged wireless and/or satellite based ISP could negate all that.