Right...I looked up those companies on wikipedia & got more confused...
I agree fully that good people have worked at M$, that M$ has made useful software, and that in the pre-Intel days M$ architechture was better at executing some instructions...
However, those are well below the average and due only to the massive scale of M$ as a corporation...when you throw that much money at that many talented people even the worst company will manage to Forrest Gump some decent products.
To go you one further, let's talk.wma file format. It was a great improvement on.mp3 for the time, with a massive jump in quality & comparitively low increase in file size. When 1GB was alot on an.mp3 player, I was stoked that i could fit more albums! Plus,.wma was made by a company M$ acquired...they bought the **good useful tech** then applied their artificial scarcity formula and fucked it all up with DRM.
TFA was a shill article. It is written as PR to discredit M$ critics. **THAT'S WHY** my comment that almost everyone who has used M$ products hates M$ products.
It's true and you agree...it's just that you have insight into the details of the execptions to M$ shitty track record.
I don't know the solution, because it's sort of part of my business concept to rabidly *hate* anyting that creates artificial scarcity for the user and other crap like that...which means M$ a constent target of my wrath. I know that good people have worked there & they have done good work.
If anything I want to be an external voice their bosses hear they can use to leverage their good ideas internally against their shitty bosses.
I have noted a significant shortage in management who understand the work they oversee.
But be that as it may, even with good management at the mid level, accountants & asshole finance guys run the show and will do anything to their staff to save money on next quarter's balance sheet.
American business has bought into the hype game 100%....until we take a flamethrower to all that bullshit we will see problems like this....this is a **symptom** of a problem
see, any AI conversation, when pressed for specifics, becomes a tl;dr spew from the Singularity Gospel acolyte
lets '86' the whole notion that anything besides a human can be a human...I love the idea of mapping brain connections...but just forget about making Commander Data...just fucking forget it b/c it's not helpful to anyone
if we're talking about scifi, sure lets talk about Commander Data vs a sentient AI that is too big to go beyond a mainframe in a room....
but this is about $Billions of dollars in real R&D money...money that could go to alot of other needy places
how much have the Feds paid contractors to make this Kurzweil AI dream bullshit???????
too many billions
stop the hype...
but thanks for your response! seriously thanks for staying on topic
you're still an asshat for not actually reading my post before you typed but I do acknowledge that you made a coherent point...
a dead wrong and ignorant point...but you made a point...god i'm sorry...i apologize for breaking my promise not to respond to your post...but here we go...you said this:
except for the structure of the brain and the laws of physics. Those aren't decided by humans, they're merely quantified by humans. There are no heuristics beyond any inherent to a biological brain.
it's a trope but emotions cannot be quantified...
you can hook up the most precise 'brain scanner' (god i hate that you just assume this tech will exist)...so assuming our 'brain scanner' super-precise...
how do you define 'love'?
you have to **scan people's brains and ask them if they are feeling 'love' then compare it**
it's all relative based on perception...you may find correlations but it is still based on what humans describe as love
it's all an artificial, non-human, construct...
plus you ignore we still don't actually understand, at all, where consciousness comes from...
all we have are a heaping pile of correlation without causation...even assuming, as you do, that we'll just invent the perfect 'brain scanner' it can't simulate something we do not understand & that is experienced differently for every human
I like that you linked to that research. There is alot of interesting barriers being broken. I saw some research article I'm not going to look up that said a group had successfully sent electrical impulses directly into live neurons in a mouse with a nano-size transistor or something.
Note that **none of this proves your point**
If humans made 'AI' by "copying an existing one"...what would it be? No matter what your answer one factor is the same: it is a constructed system made by humans.
Any time humans make something, they have to make decisions. At every step of the process of 'making AI' humans decide.
Humans decide if the skin is realistic enough...humans decide how it's speech sounds in natural conversation...humans decide the parameters for any computer simulation of neural networks
****humans program all of it**** or they program the heuristic that allows the machine to copy what it sees according to some factor (ex: with Watson it was things like wikipedia). It's all a factor of human choice.
You absolutely cannot escape this truth so accept it and adapt your world view accordingly.
I bet they would have the time and gumption to figure out how intelligence works.
Nice work TubeSteak...you nailed it up until this:
The degradation isn't selective, which is why the GP is correct that it isn't a Net Neutrality issue.
This isn't a Common Carriage issue.
It is definitely a Net Neutrality issue. Comcase/Verizon/ATT are trying to make artifiical scarcity targeted at one company: Netflix.
That's a net neutrality issue...Cogent's role as ISP is relevant but only in that it adds a link in the chain...it's still Comcast being a bullshit evil company that thinks it has some kind of capitialist-god granted right to a monopoly
I have a very strong negative reaction to crap like this:
this next 100 years will be the first century of a real-time information web splayed over the planet
it makes me so pissed...but that's not the right reaction...
deathcloset is just expressing enthusiasm...it's misplaced enthusiasm but it's a positive thing nonetheless
deathcloset: all those things you describe have been conceptualized...we all know what's possible it's really just a matter of plumbing to make it happen...its not going to change humanity in some fundamental way like you describe because your contextualization borrows from so many half-formed theories that it becomes just a pile of goo that takes the form of whatever situation
"the next 100 years" in reference to technology is an interesting subject. Technology can/should solve humankind's problems and maybe it will in 100 years, but Kurzweil and 'artificial intelligence' have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH IT
you're on/. not yahoo groups...we are techies talking here
the proper analogy to futurism is a *Hollywood film*...let's take Blade Runner
Your perspective, the hype-driven, breathlessly in wonderment futurism perfectly encapsulates the fun experience of seeing an awesome film in a movie theater. It's all fake, but because it is so well done, the film becomes real in your mind...and can give you ideas which you can use in the real world somehow. Awesome. It's still all a show!!! It's not real.
When you want to come on a tech website forum and talk though, be prepared for a huge let down.
Technology is "boring"...it's more like being on the lot when they actually film Blade Runner. Sure it would be fun! But it's not glamorous or entertaining to watch 2 gaffers and an assistant cinemetographer spend 4 hours blocking a shot in a bathroom...after 20 takes and the make up comes off it's still cool, but not like watching the film.
Get your mind right and channel your passion for progress into activities that ***meet needs and help people now***
no idea what AI can and cannot do and has ignored the relevant research for decades
^this...seriously
honest question: What do they teach in Computer type classes on this subject? Are colleges pumping out CS majors that use a Kurzweil-type contextualization?
if so that would explain alot
I'm glad I'm not the only one who has such a strong negative reaction to hearing Kurzweil and others talk about AI like this...it's so bad on so many levels...'Artificial intelligence' is just programmed software, by humans...instructions being executed...anything else is wankery
first, just because M$ & Apple jump off a bridge, does that mean Amazon must as well?
They risk being out of the market.
wtf market...
the cheap plastic bullshit set-top box 'market'? M$ and Apple aren't doing that
the funding TV series (aka 'producing') 'market'? M$ and Apple aren't doing that
There is no 'space' that M$ and Apple 'co-own' unless you're talking about the Desktop OS...otherwise, and including this set-top 'content' box...your comparison and general notions of how the industry works are ridiculous
think about what Amazon is actually doing...compare to others...
I completely understand what Amazon is trying to do, but the whole set-top box thing is a bad play.
Amazon is working from an old playbook. They're trying to do now with this box what M$ did with Xbox...it's why M$ could allow Xbox to run at a loss...it got Microsoft a space on the shelf in the living room.
Shelf space as marketing tool is old news (and was never a good idea)...ex: Netflix
Amazon is going to lose money on this deal. No one wants **another** box....especially one that doesn't do anything that Netflix can't do.
Amazon should work on competing with iTunes, spotify, etc instead of this move...the movie business is almost always a losing proposition for tech...Netflix is an exception that can't easily be supplanted.
I'm glad to see that this shill article is being roundly criticized.
I will add that my first thought is that I'd **love** to hear more about the categories of types of "Microsoft Haters"
'The ones I find the most interesting,' says Hanselman, are the 'Microsoft.....
So this is what M$ people do: Drink expensive coffee & talk about the different categories of "haters"
I can think of a few of my own, but I think the most telling category of "Microsoft Haters" is also the largest....***ANYONE WHO HAS EVER USED A MICROSOFT PRODUCT***
Microsoft products are shit. We all know why. They are bad tools.
Here's why the Olmec face stones & recent genetic studies point to pre-Columbian African colonies in the Americas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...
Or just google image "trade winds" and see for yourself how they got there.
But discoveries, like inventions, don't really mean anything on their own until someone popularizes them.
Accurate history is important. If we know that history is innacurate, it should be corrected. That's what I'm saying...correct the mistakes.
Are you saying we shouldn't correct mistakes in our history?
'discoveries' and 'inventions' are too nebulous of concepts anyway...first, the explorers we're talking about didn't 'discover' anything...the continents were populated by humans for millenia...they were the first to explore and map..its not a creative process like making a radio. Also, it's wrong to equate the two concepts because 'invention' as commonly used implies an economic motivation of some type, or at least a patent.
The Catholic Church is relevant to the discussion because from '1492' Western history records that all the explorers were all Catholic
Columbus was sent by Catholic Monarchs. Protestants didn't start settling in large numbers until England gained dominance over Spain.
This all makes the (false) narrative of history the Catholic Church presents about these events the most relevant. The primary source documents are all from Catholics during this time!
Columbus worked for Catholics...again I remind you...
You criticize ethonocentrism? That's a Red Herring. My criticism of the accepted narrative of the 'discover' of America is itself a criticism of European Ethnocentrism...so you agree with me?
Catholic are lying greedy assholes...they invent and rewrite history as they see fit. Western history of this time is mostly based on Catholic sources (Columbus worked for Catholics)...so it's relevant...
I love how your comment essentially agrees with my premise, attacks as 'statistically insignificant' my evidence, acknowledge the existence and accuracy of some of the evidence, then criticize Columbus
you're trolling and not making consistent points
You don't know shit.
Niether do I. We know ***what we have been told*** about history.
You probably could define the term "haigiography" but you still can't make the analytical mental effort to properly contextualize **primary source history** and how it effects historiography and revisionism
Again, you don't know shit and neither do I...but you have **accepted a singular narrative from the Catholic Church**
We only have one side of the native American genocide. Actually less than that, we have a historical narrative from the Catholic Church which has proven to be falsified in places...one version of one side of the story. I get what you're saying, but really, there's alot that you might not know.
Ex: The Portugese and Dutch Monarch, and very soon after VOC, the Dutch East India company, starting in the early 1500s had regular contact with Japan, and was even given an official 'trading pass' allowing Dutch traders access to ports that **no other country in the world** had access to..
It's not one document or theory. Of course around the 1500s-1700s there is evidence of an uptick in biological contact...that doesn't mean it is statistically significant or proves the Catholic Church narrative to be true.
yeah i may have spoken too soon...upon a second read of your comment you seem real
I agree that it was Teleco's failure to innovate & think beyond quarterly profits that caused all of this...I don't think a competitor can just 'hook up fiber' and knock sense into the Teleco's with competition. In labratory settings, **maybe** but this is the real world and there are ***severe*** barriers to entry to a startup Teleco that could nationally challenge Comcast or Verizon.
This isn't economics class. The real world is an Oligopoly in most industries here in America. High barriers to new businesses. Very high. Artificially high thnx to lobbyists.
Teleco's have a monopoly. You can't choose between Verizon or AT&T for your home internet service. You get one hardline option.
It's a state-controlled monopoly...which makes AT&T and Comcast essentially like a company in Nazi germany or Soviet Russia. Either way. Same outcome!
...but the 'new world' has been **continuously settled** by Asians & Europeans...there was no one event of discovery...just Catholic Church bullshit
I wonder when the Illuminati & global aristocrats will let us know the real story of the 'discovery' of the 'new world'
There is overwhelming evidence of pre-columbian contact...well...virtually everywhere...from Leif Eriksson, to the Vikings who made it to Minnesota, to the Newfoundland evidence, to the Innuit presented in Europe in 1000AD to the Inca genetics & face stones, to the South America tube gords...
It's a big deal, I know...but really the world has to learn the truth eventually...
The Voynich manuscript is another piece of evidence...but I just wonder when we can stop with the whole charade
I'll believe it only if it survives the many lawsuits that will come from the corps.
why did you bother to tell us this? if you wanted to discuss the in's and out's of 'common carriage' you would have...um...you know, mentioned it more than just a quick set up to accuse Obama of pulling a Chris Christie with Comcast (?)
by your sig it's obvious you're an Obama hater...so automatically you're going to look like a troll
you're position is that, yes this is the **right policy**, but somehow you're making the fact that Obama is attempting to go the direction YOU AGREE WITH but fail then therefore it's 'all bullshit'
or are you against net neutrality? which is it?
i have ZERO expectation that you'll ever make a comment edifying to this discussion
Slashdot Mirror
yeah....it's just that easy...
in fact, I can't think of **one** tech company started by a small group of 'tech guys'....not one single example of that happening, ever.
Right...I looked up those companies on wikipedia & got more confused...
I agree fully that good people have worked at M$, that M$ has made useful software, and that in the pre-Intel days M$ architechture was better at executing some instructions...
However, those are well below the average and due only to the massive scale of M$ as a corporation...when you throw that much money at that many talented people even the worst company will manage to Forrest Gump some decent products.
To go you one further, let's talk .wma file format. It was a great improvement on .mp3 for the time, with a massive jump in quality & comparitively low increase in file size. When 1GB was alot on an .mp3 player, I was stoked that i could fit more albums! Plus, .wma was made by a company M$ acquired...they bought the **good useful tech** then applied their artificial scarcity formula and fucked it all up with DRM.
TFA was a shill article. It is written as PR to discredit M$ critics. **THAT'S WHY** my comment that almost everyone who has used M$ products hates M$ products.
It's true and you agree...it's just that you have insight into the details of the execptions to M$ shitty track record.
I don't know the solution, because it's sort of part of my business concept to rabidly *hate* anyting that creates artificial scarcity for the user and other crap like that...which means M$ a constent target of my wrath. I know that good people have worked there & they have done good work.
If anything I want to be an external voice their bosses hear they can use to leverage their good ideas internally against their shitty bosses.
I have noted a significant shortage in management who understand the work they oversee.
But be that as it may, even with good management at the mid level, accountants & asshole finance guys run the show and will do anything to their staff to save money on next quarter's balance sheet.
American business has bought into the hype game 100%....until we take a flamethrower to all that bullshit we will see problems like this....this is a **symptom** of a problem
see, any AI conversation, when pressed for specifics, becomes a tl;dr spew from the Singularity Gospel acolyte
lets '86' the whole notion that anything besides a human can be a human...I love the idea of mapping brain connections...but just forget about making Commander Data...just fucking forget it b/c it's not helpful to anyone
if we're talking about scifi, sure lets talk about Commander Data vs a sentient AI that is too big to go beyond a mainframe in a room....
but this is about $Billions of dollars in real R&D money...money that could go to alot of other needy places
how much have the Feds paid contractors to make this Kurzweil AI dream bullshit???????
too many billions
stop the hype...
but thanks for your response! seriously thanks for staying on topic
you're still an asshat for not actually reading my post before you typed but I do acknowledge that you made a coherent point...
a dead wrong and ignorant point...but you made a point...god i'm sorry...i apologize for breaking my promise not to respond to your post...but here we go...you said this:
it's a trope but emotions cannot be quantified...
you can hook up the most precise 'brain scanner' (god i hate that you just assume this tech will exist)...so assuming our 'brain scanner' super-precise...
how do you define 'love'?
you have to **scan people's brains and ask them if they are feeling 'love' then compare it**
it's all relative based on perception...you may find correlations but it is still based on what humans describe as love
it's all an artificial, non-human, construct...
plus you ignore we still don't actually understand, at all, where consciousness comes from...
all we have are a heaping pile of correlation without causation...even assuming, as you do, that we'll just invent the perfect 'brain scanner' it can't simulate something we do not understand & that is experienced differently for every human
AI FAIL
so you agree with me that Microsoft products are shit?
where's the point of contention?
Ok, fuck you...i addressed that directly in my previous comment, the one you responded to just above, here's what I said:
that's what I said....you didn't read it you just keep believing in your Singularity Gospel
***HUMANS DECIDED THE PARAMETERS OF ANY SIMULATION***
it's all about human choices...in how to **program** a machine to **appear** human
humans are not the same as machines...two different things....one natural, one artificial
humans have civil rights...machines do not
you watch too much sci-fi....don't respond this conversation is over
I like that you linked to that research. There is alot of interesting barriers being broken. I saw some research article I'm not going to look up that said a group had successfully sent electrical impulses directly into live neurons in a mouse with a nano-size transistor or something.
Note that **none of this proves your point**
If humans made 'AI' by "copying an existing one"...what would it be? No matter what your answer one factor is the same: it is a constructed system made by humans.
Any time humans make something, they have to make decisions. At every step of the process of 'making AI' humans decide.
Humans decide if the skin is realistic enough...humans decide how it's speech sounds in natural conversation...humans decide the parameters for any computer simulation of neural networks
****humans program all of it**** or they program the heuristic that allows the machine to copy what it sees according to some factor (ex: with Watson it was things like wikipedia). It's all a factor of human choice.
You absolutely cannot escape this truth so accept it and adapt your world view accordingly.
n/t
yeah I know what you mean I think...'enthusiasm' becomes the means by which humans are controlled like chattel
like when Nazis stoked the fires of nationalism...
we're not really in that territory here so i thought it was safe to fully encourage him/her
Nice work TubeSteak...you nailed it up until this:
This isn't a Common Carriage issue.
It is definitely a Net Neutrality issue. Comcase/Verizon/ATT are trying to make artifiical scarcity targeted at one company: Netflix.
That's a net neutrality issue...Cogent's role as ISP is relevant but only in that it adds a link in the chain...it's still Comcast being a bullshit evil company that thinks it has some kind of capitialist-god granted right to a monopoly
I have a very strong negative reaction to crap like this:
it makes me so pissed...but that's not the right reaction...
deathcloset is just expressing enthusiasm...it's misplaced enthusiasm but it's a positive thing nonetheless
deathcloset: all those things you describe have been conceptualized...we all know what's possible it's really just a matter of plumbing to make it happen...its not going to change humanity in some fundamental way like you describe because your contextualization borrows from so many half-formed theories that it becomes just a pile of goo that takes the form of whatever situation
"the next 100 years" in reference to technology is an interesting subject. Technology can/should solve humankind's problems and maybe it will in 100 years, but Kurzweil and 'artificial intelligence' have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH IT
you're on /. not yahoo groups...we are techies talking here
the proper analogy to futurism is a *Hollywood film*...let's take Blade Runner
Your perspective, the hype-driven, breathlessly in wonderment futurism perfectly encapsulates the fun experience of seeing an awesome film in a movie theater. It's all fake, but because it is so well done, the film becomes real in your mind...and can give you ideas which you can use in the real world somehow. Awesome. It's still all a show!!! It's not real.
When you want to come on a tech website forum and talk though, be prepared for a huge let down.
Technology is "boring"...it's more like being on the lot when they actually film Blade Runner. Sure it would be fun! But it's not glamorous or entertaining to watch 2 gaffers and an assistant cinemetographer spend 4 hours blocking a shot in a bathroom...after 20 takes and the make up comes off it's still cool, but not like watching the film.
Get your mind right and channel your passion for progress into activities that ***meet needs and help people now***
^this...seriously
honest question: What do they teach in Computer type classes on this subject? Are colleges pumping out CS majors that use a Kurzweil-type contextualization?
if so that would explain alot
I'm glad I'm not the only one who has such a strong negative reaction to hearing Kurzweil and others talk about AI like this...it's so bad on so many levels...'Artificial intelligence' is just programmed software, by humans...instructions being executed...anything else is wankery
first, just because M$ & Apple jump off a bridge, does that mean Amazon must as well?
wtf market...
the cheap plastic bullshit set-top box 'market'? M$ and Apple aren't doing that
the funding TV series (aka 'producing') 'market'? M$ and Apple aren't doing that
There is no 'space' that M$ and Apple 'co-own' unless you're talking about the Desktop OS...otherwise, and including this set-top 'content' box...your comparison and general notions of how the industry works are ridiculous
think about what Amazon is actually doing...compare to others...
nice try tepples/Amazon PR
"all-you-can-eat VOD" is bullshit corporate marketing speak...its audio & video files...seriously Amazon didnt 'innovate' that at all
and what does that leave us with???
a **shipping discount**
wow!
so futuristic and **INNOVATIVE**...i can see the TED Talk now!
no way that Netflix could ever compete with a discount on shipping! Apple? yeah right!
I completely understand what Amazon is trying to do, but the whole set-top box thing is a bad play.
Amazon is working from an old playbook. They're trying to do now with this box what M$ did with Xbox...it's why M$ could allow Xbox to run at a loss...it got Microsoft a space on the shelf in the living room.
Shelf space as marketing tool is old news (and was never a good idea)...ex: Netflix
Amazon is going to lose money on this deal. No one wants **another** box....especially one that doesn't do anything that Netflix can't do.
Amazon should work on competing with iTunes, spotify, etc instead of this move...the movie business is almost always a losing proposition for tech...Netflix is an exception that can't easily be supplanted.
I'm glad to see that this shill article is being roundly criticized.
I will add that my first thought is that I'd **love** to hear more about the categories of types of "Microsoft Haters"
So this is what M$ people do: Drink expensive coffee & talk about the different categories of "haters"
I can think of a few of my own, but I think the most telling category of "Microsoft Haters" is also the largest.... ***ANYONE WHO HAS EVER USED A MICROSOFT PRODUCT***
Microsoft products are shit. We all know why. They are bad tools.
look at the 3 replies to my comment...
All of them AC public relations trolls for Comcast!
they all put out the same talking point and link to a completely irrelevant and bullshit point
hey PR fuckheads.....fuck you! get a real fucking job...
Right. Olmecs. That's what I meant, not Inca.
Here's why the Olmec face stones & recent genetic studies point to pre-Columbian African colonies in the Americas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...
Or just google image "trade winds" and see for yourself how they got there.
Accurate history is important. If we know that history is innacurate, it should be corrected. That's what I'm saying...correct the mistakes.
Are you saying we shouldn't correct mistakes in our history?
'discoveries' and 'inventions' are too nebulous of concepts anyway...first, the explorers we're talking about didn't 'discover' anything...the continents were populated by humans for millenia...they were the first to explore and map..its not a creative process like making a radio. Also, it's wrong to equate the two concepts because 'invention' as commonly used implies an economic motivation of some type, or at least a patent.
The Catholic Church is relevant to the discussion because from '1492' Western history records that all the explorers were all Catholic
Columbus was sent by Catholic Monarchs. Protestants didn't start settling in large numbers until England gained dominance over Spain.
This all makes the (false) narrative of history the Catholic Church presents about these events the most relevant. The primary source documents are all from Catholics during this time!
Columbus worked for Catholics...again I remind you...
You criticize ethonocentrism? That's a Red Herring. My criticism of the accepted narrative of the 'discover' of America is itself a criticism of European Ethnocentrism...so you agree with me?
Catholic are lying greedy assholes...they invent and rewrite history as they see fit. Western history of this time is mostly based on Catholic sources (Columbus worked for Catholics)...so it's relevant...
I love how your comment essentially agrees with my premise, attacks as 'statistically insignificant' my evidence, acknowledge the existence and accuracy of some of the evidence, then criticize Columbus
you're trolling and not making consistent points
You don't know shit.
Niether do I. We know ***what we have been told*** about history.
You probably could define the term "haigiography" but you still can't make the analytical mental effort to properly contextualize **primary source history** and how it effects historiography and revisionism
Again, you don't know shit and neither do I...but you have **accepted a singular narrative from the Catholic Church**
We only have one side of the native American genocide. Actually less than that, we have a historical narrative from the Catholic Church which has proven to be falsified in places...one version of one side of the story. I get what you're saying, but really, there's alot that you might not know.
Ex: The Portugese and Dutch Monarch, and very soon after VOC, the Dutch East India company, starting in the early 1500s had regular contact with Japan, and was even given an official 'trading pass' allowing Dutch traders access to ports that **no other country in the world** had access to..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...
It's not one document or theory. Of course around the 1500s-1700s there is evidence of an uptick in biological contact...that doesn't mean it is statistically significant or proves the Catholic Church narrative to be true.
yeah i may have spoken too soon...upon a second read of your comment you seem real
I agree that it was Teleco's failure to innovate & think beyond quarterly profits that caused all of this...I don't think a competitor can just 'hook up fiber' and knock sense into the Teleco's with competition. In labratory settings, **maybe** but this is the real world and there are ***severe*** barriers to entry to a startup Teleco that could nationally challenge Comcast or Verizon.
This isn't economics class. The real world is an Oligopoly in most industries here in America. High barriers to new businesses. Very high. Artificially high thnx to lobbyists.
Teleco's have a monopoly. You can't choose between Verizon or AT&T for your home internet service. You get one hardline option.
It's a state-controlled monopoly...which makes AT&T and Comcast essentially like a company in Nazi germany or Soviet Russia. Either way. Same outcome!
...but the 'new world' has been **continuously settled** by Asians & Europeans...there was no one event of discovery...just Catholic Church bullshit
I wonder when the Illuminati & global aristocrats will let us know the real story of the 'discovery' of the 'new world'
There is overwhelming evidence of pre-columbian contact...well...virtually everywhere...from Leif Eriksson, to the Vikings who made it to Minnesota, to the Newfoundland evidence, to the Innuit presented in Europe in 1000AD to the Inca genetics & face stones, to the South America tube gords...
It's a big deal, I know...but really the world has to learn the truth eventually...
The Voynich manuscript is another piece of evidence...but I just wonder when we can stop with the whole charade
why did you bother to tell us this? if you wanted to discuss the in's and out's of 'common carriage' you would have...um...you know, mentioned it more than just a quick set up to accuse Obama of pulling a Chris Christie with Comcast (?)
by your sig it's obvious you're an Obama hater...so automatically you're going to look like a troll
you're position is that, yes this is the **right policy**, but somehow you're making the fact that Obama is attempting to go the direction YOU AGREE WITH but fail then therefore it's 'all bullshit'
or are you against net neutrality? which is it?
i have ZERO expectation that you'll ever make a comment edifying to this discussion
your analogy is trolling...it's way off
the FCC is doing the right thing...common carriage principles go back to the early Postal Service in the US and it is a sound legal framework
only non-techs make the arguments you are making...
also, i love how you attempt to turn a conversation about a **good step** by Obama in regulating our Capitalist Big Brother into the opposite...
beware the above post is a full-on troll