You would think unions would have learned the lesson by now, with all the jobs they have lost by destroying companies with non-union competition and putting ALL of the workers on the street. But it seems the union bosses are doing just as well as the corporate CEOs with their golden parachutes, so fuck all those prols, I guess. It's almost like the elites are cooperating to screw everyone else and only put on a show of "protecting the workers."
I don't know about american unions, but as I said in other posts, that's most definitely not true about northern European unions (let's call them "Germanic" for short). Not by a long shot. We have the highest standard of living indices known to man, lowest inequality, and well running economies (much better than the US), and some of the strongest unions on the planet. In fact, many big business leaders admit in private that it's the unions that make it easy to do business here. It levels the playing field when it comes to employees, everybody knows the rules, and you don't have to suffer strikes all the time, but can negotiate instead.
Oh, sure, Germany is doing great, thanks to investments in industry and education for many decades. Not sure about unions - Germany has extensive labor regulations and employment laws. It's nothing like the "at-will employment" used in the US and other countries. Maybe the unions helped put those in place. There are actually better employment protection in the laws there than most unions can get through negotiations in the US.
And, of course, none of that extends to other members of the EU - it's just Germany. Much of the rest of the country is borrowing Euros to buy German goods. And Germany's answer is austerity.
So good on Germany for their ability to compete. Too bad about Spain. And Italy. And Portugal. And Greece. And Ireland.
He just isnt willing to work for what these H1B's are willing to work for.
Probably because he's worth more. I know I am, because I've worked with these guys, and they SUCK. Yea, they'll work 12-14 hour days, weekends, etc. But they work STUPID. They do a bunch of manual stuff over and over instead of spending a little time to learn some automation so they can do it once. Like anyone, they make mistakes, and typos, but more of them because they work tired, and don't know how to find stuff because they're so focused on goals they don't follow process and then everything is inconsistent and exhibits random failures that are painful to track.
"Qualifications" are a total joke. These guys are the epitome of the "paper qualified" workers that can pass a test but have not idea how to make things work in a real-world scenario. They copy-paste everything, don't try to learn software or read documentation.
The culture makes it worse. If you're overloaded with assignments, you're supposed to say so, but the Indian culture doesn't work like that. It's an "honor" to take on extra work, even when you know you can't get everything in on time. So the managers pile stuff on the workers because they always say they can get it done, and then the schedules slip, and the quality suffers and you end up with something late and that's crap and then someone has to take over and fix it. And that's more expensive than paying those "IT folks" you think are overpaid. In the end, they are CHEAPER.
But you're too short-sighted to see any of that. Just like these FWD.us guys.
Hilarious how vicious, right wing libertarians with a FYGM mentality also end up on the chopping block.
Funny how your uninformed hatred of "libertarians" causes these delusions that these corporatists are actually libertarians. If libertarianism is good for corporations, how come corporations always oppose libertarian ideas?
And this is true even with ObamaCare, which is a vast improvement on what we had (or rather, didn't have) before.
Yes, ObamaCare is, no doubt, a vast improvement for people with no healthcare before. It only sucks for the other 80%.
Single payer or universal medicaid would have been better for everyone. But of course Obama turned out to be a fascist, corporate cock-sucking piece of shit instead of the populist messiah all you low-information bleating idiot that voted for him though he was.
In a previous job I had the choice between leaving and leaving with a bonus if I would train my replacements. I took the bonus, which was the rational choice.
Yes, this happened, same thing happened to me. At the end, they offered me a permanent position, but at a rather insulting salary. So I left for another job that was paid better than my old pay (including bonuses). That company survived at a rather downgraded capability, but they had a government-granted monopoly for what they were doing, so they survived. Edison, I believe, is in the same position, so they can survive even though the company will fail their customers more than ever.
In some cases, I am actively prevented from buying the cheaper consumer article, because the corporation that makes it has purchased a law that says I cannot shop around for their product and import it from a country where it is being sold 90% cheaper. I'm referring to the pharmaceutical industry.
This is one of those issues where the government policies are based EXACTLY on a progressive agenda, but progressives dislike dealing with their own principles. You see, the US pharmaceutical companies spend a LOT of money researching and developing new drugs - it costs upwards of a million dollars just for the compliance with FDA requirements for approval alone. They then price the drugs in different countries based on the country's relative wealth. Since the US is the wealthiest country, the drugs are most expensive there. Isn't it a progressive ideal to provide subsidy for people less able to afford expensive life-sustaining products? Well that's what these drug policies ACTUALLY DO. But you can't stop complaining about it.
There are LOTS of issues about the pharmaceutical industry, but the "free market" for drugs is NOT one of them, because it doesn't exist in any way, shape or form.
Even many staunch union supporters would agree that giving workers more power than employers is a bad idea.
Why? If the workers are supposed to just smile and take it when they get laid off, and get another job, why shouldn't the same be true of businesses? If the workers had more power and used it unwisely the company would just go bust, and the owner would have to get another job, which is how free market capitalism is supposed to work... How is that different?
In fact, with powerful unions comes a more responsible work force, not less. If everyone's job is at stake, then you have to tread carefully. Otherwise, how could we in northern Europe have large multinational companies when we have some of the strongest unions in the world? Our current PM was a former top union boss, and lo and behold, there wasn't any mass flight of Sandvikens and SAABs...
You would think unions would have learned the lesson by now, with all the jobs they have lost by destroying companies with non-union competition and putting ALL of the workers on the street. But it seems the union bosses are doing just as well as the corporate CEOs with their golden parachutes, so fuck all those prols, I guess. It's almost like the elites are cooperating to screw everyone else and only put on a show of "protecting the workers."
This is a really long and convoluted discussion, and many people seem to have gotten very confused by some ludicrous rhetoric designed to demonize the free market. The arguments get really insane. So I'm going to make it really simple.
In a free market, the consumers (a.k.a. customers) are in control. Producers live and die by their ability to serve consumers. Governments support free markets by enforcing a competitive environment where consumers are in control.
In a command economy (i.e. Communism, dictatorships, Fascism, the US agriculture and health care industries, etc.), the focus is on Producers. Producers are in control, and call the shots, and governments support command economies by ensuring policies that ensure producers are in control. Strictly controlled command economies can only work for industries where the demand is fairly inelastic, since consumers only purchase goods through coercion (people need food, health care, and sometimes transportation for simple basic survival).
You can have plenty of customers and demand, and still have no jobs.
You would have to come up with some very specific qualifiers for this statement to come even close to being true. Jobs existed before corporations. The middle class existed before corporations. They created their own jobs based on what they found customers wanted. You don't need an artificial regulatory construct in order to provide a service - that's just government trying to control the markets. If you grow more food on your land than your family can eat, then guess what? There are customers for your "product" you created with your "job".
While there is a proper definition of the term "libertarian", most slashdotters who identify as such do not understand it. Indeed, the same can be said for most anyone who self-identifies as "libertarian".
So, most people who self-identify as "libertarian" have less understanding of their own principles and beliefs than... you. Right. Got it.
I assume you self-identify as a Psychologist, because they are one of the few groups I know of that define words to describe people and then go around telling people they need a professional to tell them which words to use to describe themselves.
if they see the need to have unskilled or low skilled US workers replaced by better trained and superior H1B's then so be it
Reminds me of a bar where I used to go regularly. I went in one day and they had replaced all the craft brewery taps with Anheuser-Busch and Miller selections. When I complained about it, the manager told me "We saw the need to have unquality or low quality US beer replaced by better quality and superior mass-market versions. What the fuck do YOU know about beer anyway?" I guess he didn't realize that I pioneered many new hop varieties and types of beer as a brewmaster for a local brewery.
I don't go there anymore, but I have to assume that eventually customers will realize they are being served shit and decide to go elsewhere.
This is correct. Anyone claiming that you can work for a company - paid by the hour - and own ANY rights to the product of your work is full of BS. Sure, if you can negotiate a contract that says so, the do it. But absent that written agreement all work is for-hire, and there is AMPLE common law that follows that principle.
“The FBI makes this proposal to look like they’re looking for a simple law to add a simple feature,” says Robert Graham, CEO at Errata Security. “But when you look into it, what they’re really asking for is dramatic, it’s a huge thing. They’d need to outlaw certain kinds of code. Possessing crypto code would become illegal.”
Yes, that's the goal. And it's made much easier by the new FCC regulations, which protect only "lawful" content. There is no need to outlaw cryptography - the rules don't use the word "legal", which would be a much higher burden. Instead, you should specify what is allowed, and everything else is subject to blocking. Devices, too, are regulated under the new regime. So, for instance, if your phone uses encryption that is not decipherable by the ISP and/or the central authority (licensed security provider) that holds the keys, then it is an "unlawful" device and will not be allowed on the Internet.
“You can't build a backdoor that only the good guys can walk through,” cryptographer and author Bruce Schneier explained. “Encryption protects against cybercriminals, industrial competitors, the Chinese secret police, and the FBI. You're either vulnerable to eavesdropping by any of them, or you're secure from eavesdropping from all of them.”
Quite true, of course. But that's not going to stop this train from moving down this track. Clapper has money to make, and Comey has a career to look after, and lots of corporations stand to make a lot of money cooperating with this scheme. Sure, there are some ISPs pushing back against the FCC's rules right now, but that's because they see lost revenues. That can change behind closed doors while the regulations work through the courts and Congress looks at codifying them into law. There won't be enough good people in the administration to stop, any more than they could stop the Patriot Act, it's expansion and renewal, the bank bailouts, the cronyism build into Obamacare, and on and on...
do i understand the em drive status quo correctly?
Not exactly. The cold fusion debacle led to a lot of failures right away. There were people trying to replicate the cold fusion that got nothing, and others that saw some results. It turned out it depended on your source of palladium whether you would see any results.
In this case, all attempts to replicate the machine have detected some thrust coming from it, and at fairly consistent levels (as far as the measurements go). So it's clear in this case that the claims are correct and the EM works. There are lots of questions, the answers to some of which will mean it is not a viable engine for any practical use. But it's not really comparable to the "cold fusion debacle".
" The Lawful Content clause in the rules is setup to ensure only lawful content is transmitted over the Internet. In order to determine if your data/packet is lawful, the government will have to analyze your data. In order to do that, they will only allow an encryption to be used that they can quickly decrypt (similar to what they did with Fax machines -the clipper chip). This will still allow encryption to perform email and internet transactions to keep the tech and private security companies happy.
This is the launch board to end private encryption, and will finally allow government to have free and open access to all data transmitted on the internet. Because of this, all devices that connect to the Internet will have to follow the same guidelines, this being phones, printers, tablets, PC’s etc. This will end all debate about companies providing devices that government cannot easily gain access.
This clause is much larger than just making hate speech - opposite political views, etc, unlawful content, this is the purpose to gain access to all the Internet data traffic."
While I think the reaction to the nipple flash at the Superbowl was way over the top there is a substantial difference between something that is broadcast over the air with no control over who can receive it vs. something sent down a wire at the specific request of the receiver.
There may be a difference to you, but that doesn't mean there is a difference to the regulators or politicians. After all, there are children on the Internet - have to protect the children from all those "dark corners". The difference in the past was that Internet content was not controlled under a regulatory scheme (like broadcast TV). But now it is. And only "lawful" (that is, explicitly allowed) content and protocols are covered. Everything else is subject to censorship and blocking.
People who are against net neutrality are for the internet as it is and has been since it entered the mainstream.
People who are for net neutrality are trying to fix something that they think might be broken in theory because they are afraid of corporations and don't understand market forces.
It's worse than that, actually. It clearly looks like a effort to bring the Internet into a regulatory scheme like broadcast TV. Note all through the regulations they point out that only "lawful" content is protected. Not "legal" - "lawful". It's an important distinction. For instance, if I want to show some nipple during a performance, that's perfectly legal. However, if I do it during a superbowl show on broadcast TV, it's not "lawful", and I will face a half million dollars in fines. And the "lawful" moniker applies not just to content, but protocols and "transport mechanisms" as well. Is that protocol "lawful"?
Some of the champions of net neutrality are now starting to question whether they really got what they wanted - or if it's going to be something else. There will be endless challenges in the courts, and some companies have already promised them. And, of course, the FCC has still not release the 300 pages of regulations, so nobody really knows the details yet.
It's even worse, the company had already had gone over budget almost two billion in doing a database for the Canadian government. Not a great track record, but still chosen above tons of qualified companies in the US.
That's consistent with the track record of most of these outsourcing companies. HCLA, for instance (Indian-based IT company), famously spent years writing the software for the Boeing Airbus. At the end it didn't work, failed FAA certification, and Boeing had to kick them out and hire a new team to do a re-write. HCLA has done the same on other projects.
You would think that at some point these companies (and government agencies) would figure out that they are wasting money on these low-bidder foreign companies, and stop using them. But no. They must be good salesmen, is all I can figure. They are certainly NOT good software engineers.
Slashdot Mirror
You would think unions would have learned the lesson by now, with all the jobs they have lost by destroying companies with non-union competition and putting ALL of the workers on the street. But it seems the union bosses are doing just as well as the corporate CEOs with their golden parachutes, so fuck all those prols, I guess. It's almost like the elites are cooperating to screw everyone else and only put on a show of "protecting the workers."
I don't know about american unions, but as I said in other posts, that's most definitely not true about northern European unions (let's call them "Germanic" for short). Not by a long shot. We have the highest standard of living indices known to man, lowest inequality, and well running economies (much better than the US), and some of the strongest unions on the planet. In fact, many big business leaders admit in private that it's the unions that make it easy to do business here. It levels the playing field when it comes to employees, everybody knows the rules, and you don't have to suffer strikes all the time, but can negotiate instead.
Oh, sure, Germany is doing great, thanks to investments in industry and education for many decades. Not sure about unions - Germany has extensive labor regulations and employment laws. It's nothing like the "at-will employment" used in the US and other countries. Maybe the unions helped put those in place. There are actually better employment protection in the laws there than most unions can get through negotiations in the US.
And, of course, none of that extends to other members of the EU - it's just Germany. Much of the rest of the country is borrowing Euros to buy German goods. And Germany's answer is austerity.
So good on Germany for their ability to compete. Too bad about Spain. And Italy. And Portugal. And Greece. And Ireland.
'Schaffe, schaffe, Häusle baue!'
Anyone in IT needs to pay attention to this, it's a rare insight into how management and executes see the labor force.
They would execute the labor force if they could, but for now, they just want them cheaper.
He just isnt willing to work for what these H1B's are willing to work for.
Probably because he's worth more. I know I am, because I've worked with these guys, and they SUCK. Yea, they'll work 12-14 hour days, weekends, etc. But they work STUPID. They do a bunch of manual stuff over and over instead of spending a little time to learn some automation so they can do it once. Like anyone, they make mistakes, and typos, but more of them because they work tired, and don't know how to find stuff because they're so focused on goals they don't follow process and then everything is inconsistent and exhibits random failures that are painful to track.
"Qualifications" are a total joke. These guys are the epitome of the "paper qualified" workers that can pass a test but have not idea how to make things work in a real-world scenario. They copy-paste everything, don't try to learn software or read documentation.
The culture makes it worse. If you're overloaded with assignments, you're supposed to say so, but the Indian culture doesn't work like that. It's an "honor" to take on extra work, even when you know you can't get everything in on time. So the managers pile stuff on the workers because they always say they can get it done, and then the schedules slip, and the quality suffers and you end up with something late and that's crap and then someone has to take over and fix it. And that's more expensive than paying those "IT folks" you think are overpaid. In the end, they are CHEAPER.
But you're too short-sighted to see any of that. Just like these FWD.us guys.
Please explain, what's the competitive advantage of somebody from a different culture, background, and speaking english as a 2nd language ?
The bias of the hiring manager.
Hilarious how vicious, right wing libertarians with a FYGM mentality also end up on the chopping block.
Funny how your uninformed hatred of "libertarians" causes these delusions that these corporatists are actually libertarians. If libertarianism is good for corporations, how come corporations always oppose libertarian ideas?
And this is true even with ObamaCare, which is a vast improvement on what we had (or rather, didn't have) before.
Yes, ObamaCare is, no doubt, a vast improvement for people with no healthcare before. It only sucks for the other 80%.
Single payer or universal medicaid would have been better for everyone. But of course Obama turned out to be a fascist, corporate cock-sucking piece of shit instead of the populist messiah all you low-information bleating idiot that voted for him though he was.
In a previous job I had the choice between leaving and leaving with a bonus if I would train my replacements. I took the bonus, which was the rational choice.
Yes, this happened, same thing happened to me. At the end, they offered me a permanent position, but at a rather insulting salary. So I left for another job that was paid better than my old pay (including bonuses). That company survived at a rather downgraded capability, but they had a government-granted monopoly for what they were doing, so they survived. Edison, I believe, is in the same position, so they can survive even though the company will fail their customers more than ever.
In some cases, I am actively prevented from buying the cheaper consumer article, because the corporation that makes it has purchased a law that says I cannot shop around for their product and import it from a country where it is being sold 90% cheaper. I'm referring to the pharmaceutical industry.
This is one of those issues where the government policies are based EXACTLY on a progressive agenda, but progressives dislike dealing with their own principles. You see, the US pharmaceutical companies spend a LOT of money researching and developing new drugs - it costs upwards of a million dollars just for the compliance with FDA requirements for approval alone. They then price the drugs in different countries based on the country's relative wealth. Since the US is the wealthiest country, the drugs are most expensive there. Isn't it a progressive ideal to provide subsidy for people less able to afford expensive life-sustaining products? Well that's what these drug policies ACTUALLY DO. But you can't stop complaining about it.
There are LOTS of issues about the pharmaceutical industry, but the "free market" for drugs is NOT one of them, because it doesn't exist in any way, shape or form.
Even many staunch union supporters would agree that giving workers more power than employers is a bad idea.
Why? If the workers are supposed to just smile and take it when they get laid off, and get another job, why shouldn't the same be true of businesses? If the workers had more power and used it unwisely the company would just go bust, and the owner would have to get another job, which is how free market capitalism is supposed to work... How is that different?
In fact, with powerful unions comes a more responsible work force, not less. If everyone's job is at stake, then you have to tread carefully. Otherwise, how could we in northern Europe have large multinational companies when we have some of the strongest unions in the world? Our current PM was a former top union boss, and lo and behold, there wasn't any mass flight of Sandvikens and SAABs...
You would think unions would have learned the lesson by now, with all the jobs they have lost by destroying companies with non-union competition and putting ALL of the workers on the street. But it seems the union bosses are doing just as well as the corporate CEOs with their golden parachutes, so fuck all those prols, I guess. It's almost like the elites are cooperating to screw everyone else and only put on a show of "protecting the workers."
Parent is informative and informed.
This is a really long and convoluted discussion, and many people seem to have gotten very confused by some ludicrous rhetoric designed to demonize the free market. The arguments get really insane. So I'm going to make it really simple.
In a free market, the consumers (a.k.a. customers) are in control. Producers live and die by their ability to serve consumers. Governments support free markets by enforcing a competitive environment where consumers are in control.
In a command economy (i.e. Communism, dictatorships, Fascism, the US agriculture and health care industries, etc.), the focus is on Producers. Producers are in control, and call the shots, and governments support command economies by ensuring policies that ensure producers are in control. Strictly controlled command economies can only work for industries where the demand is fairly inelastic, since consumers only purchase goods through coercion (people need food, health care, and sometimes transportation for simple basic survival).
And without corporations there are no jobs.
That's so wrong it even fails the wrongness test.
You can have plenty of customers and demand, and still have no jobs.
You would have to come up with some very specific qualifiers for this statement to come even close to being true. Jobs existed before corporations. The middle class existed before corporations. They created their own jobs based on what they found customers wanted. You don't need an artificial regulatory construct in order to provide a service - that's just government trying to control the markets. If you grow more food on your land than your family can eat, then guess what? There are customers for your "product" you created with your "job".
Please don't mod up people that start their first sentence on the subject line. Ever. No matter what they have to say...
You're not Facebook's customer, you're a Facebook user. The customers are the ad and marketing guys.
Almost right. The customers are the ad buyers, true. Using Facebook makes you the product being sold.
I've never been hired or paid by a customer, dipshit. And neither have you.
... or anyone else that wanted you to deal with customers, apparently.
While there is a proper definition of the term "libertarian", most slashdotters who identify as such do not understand it. Indeed, the same can be said for most anyone who self-identifies as "libertarian".
So, most people who self-identify as "libertarian" have less understanding of their own principles and beliefs than ... you. Right. Got it.
I assume you self-identify as a Psychologist, because they are one of the few groups I know of that define words to describe people and then go around telling people they need a professional to tell them which words to use to describe themselves.
if they see the need to have unskilled or low skilled US workers replaced by better trained and superior H1B's then so be it
Reminds me of a bar where I used to go regularly. I went in one day and they had replaced all the craft brewery taps with Anheuser-Busch and Miller selections. When I complained about it, the manager told me "We saw the need to have unquality or low quality US beer replaced by better quality and superior mass-market versions. What the fuck do YOU know about beer anyway?" I guess he didn't realize that I pioneered many new hop varieties and types of beer as a brewmaster for a local brewery.
I don't go there anymore, but I have to assume that eventually customers will realize they are being served shit and decide to go elsewhere.
This is correct. Anyone claiming that you can work for a company - paid by the hour - and own ANY rights to the product of your work is full of BS. Sure, if you can negotiate a contract that says so, the do it. But absent that written agreement all work is for-hire, and there is AMPLE common law that follows that principle.
“The FBI makes this proposal to look like they’re looking for a simple law to add a simple feature,” says Robert Graham, CEO at Errata Security. “But when you look into it, what they’re really asking for is dramatic, it’s a huge thing. They’d need to outlaw certain kinds of code. Possessing crypto code would become illegal.”
Yes, that's the goal. And it's made much easier by the new FCC regulations, which protect only "lawful" content. There is no need to outlaw cryptography - the rules don't use the word "legal", which would be a much higher burden. Instead, you should specify what is allowed, and everything else is subject to blocking. Devices, too, are regulated under the new regime. So, for instance, if your phone uses encryption that is not decipherable by the ISP and/or the central authority (licensed security provider) that holds the keys, then it is an "unlawful" device and will not be allowed on the Internet.
“You can't build a backdoor that only the good guys can walk through,” cryptographer and author Bruce Schneier explained. “Encryption protects against cybercriminals, industrial competitors, the Chinese secret police, and the FBI. You're either vulnerable to eavesdropping by any of them, or you're secure from eavesdropping from all of them.”
Quite true, of course. But that's not going to stop this train from moving down this track. Clapper has money to make, and Comey has a career to look after, and lots of corporations stand to make a lot of money cooperating with this scheme. Sure, there are some ISPs pushing back against the FCC's rules right now, but that's because they see lost revenues. That can change behind closed doors while the regulations work through the courts and Congress looks at codifying them into law. There won't be enough good people in the administration to stop, any more than they could stop the Patriot Act, it's expansion and renewal, the bank bailouts, the cronyism build into Obamacare, and on and on...
we either have
1. another cold fusion debacle
2. groundbreaking fundamentally new science
do i understand the em drive status quo correctly?
Not exactly. The cold fusion debacle led to a lot of failures right away. There were people trying to replicate the cold fusion that got nothing, and others that saw some results. It turned out it depended on your source of palladium whether you would see any results.
In this case, all attempts to replicate the machine have detected some thrust coming from it, and at fairly consistent levels (as far as the measurements go). So it's clear in this case that the claims are correct and the EM works. There are lots of questions, the answers to some of which will mean it is not a viable engine for any practical use. But it's not really comparable to the "cold fusion debacle".
" The Lawful Content clause in the rules is setup to ensure only lawful content is transmitted over the Internet. In order to determine if your data/packet is lawful, the government will have to analyze your data. In order to do that, they will only allow an encryption to be used that they can quickly decrypt (similar to what they did with Fax machines -the clipper chip). This will still allow encryption to perform email and internet transactions to keep the tech and private security companies happy.
This is the launch board to end private encryption, and will finally allow government to have free and open access to all data transmitted on the internet. Because of this, all devices that connect to the Internet will have to follow the same guidelines, this being phones, printers, tablets, PC’s etc. This will end all debate about companies providing devices that government cannot easily gain access.
This clause is much larger than just making hate speech - opposite political views, etc, unlawful content, this is the purpose to gain access to all the Internet data traffic."
While I think the reaction to the nipple flash at the Superbowl was way over the top there is a substantial difference between something that is broadcast over the air with no control over who can receive it vs. something sent down a wire at the specific request of the receiver.
There may be a difference to you, but that doesn't mean there is a difference to the regulators or politicians. After all, there are children on the Internet - have to protect the children from all those "dark corners". The difference in the past was that Internet content was not controlled under a regulatory scheme (like broadcast TV). But now it is. And only "lawful" (that is, explicitly allowed) content and protocols are covered. Everything else is subject to censorship and blocking.
Sorry, I meant "Dreamliner", not Airbus.
People who are against net neutrality are for the internet as it is and has been since it entered the mainstream. People who are for net neutrality are trying to fix something that they think might be broken in theory because they are afraid of corporations and don't understand market forces.
It's worse than that, actually. It clearly looks like a effort to bring the Internet into a regulatory scheme like broadcast TV. Note all through the regulations they point out that only "lawful" content is protected. Not "legal" - "lawful". It's an important distinction. For instance, if I want to show some nipple during a performance, that's perfectly legal. However, if I do it during a superbowl show on broadcast TV, it's not "lawful", and I will face a half million dollars in fines. And the "lawful" moniker applies not just to content, but protocols and "transport mechanisms" as well. Is that protocol "lawful"?
Some of the champions of net neutrality are now starting to question whether they really got what they wanted - or if it's going to be something else. There will be endless challenges in the courts, and some companies have already promised them. And, of course, the FCC has still not release the 300 pages of regulations, so nobody really knows the details yet.
It's even worse, the company had already had gone over budget almost two billion in doing a database for the Canadian government. Not a great track record, but still chosen above tons of qualified companies in the US.
That's consistent with the track record of most of these outsourcing companies. HCLA, for instance (Indian-based IT company), famously spent years writing the software for the Boeing Airbus. At the end it didn't work, failed FAA certification, and Boeing had to kick them out and hire a new team to do a re-write. HCLA has done the same on other projects.
You would think that at some point these companies (and government agencies) would figure out that they are wasting money on these low-bidder foreign companies, and stop using them. But no. They must be good salesmen, is all I can figure. They are certainly NOT good software engineers.