You're right, of course, but your point isn't relevant. We're not talking about genuine dislike of a thing in a vacuum. We're talking about noticing, or not noticing as it were, when things are hidden by either cheese or quality programming.
And if I'm trying to watch something that's low quality, I'm less likely to enjoy it in the first place. Only if I know I like something and really want to watch it and can't easily change the quality will I put up with low quality.
The study implies that you're electing to dislike things that are of lower quality. You're looking for it, and if you stopped focusing on it, you'd not notice so long as the content was otherwise good.
My oldest son hates vegetables. The other day he accidentally grabbed a slice of supreme pizza. He'd eaten about half to three quarters of it when I pointed out to him that he was, in fact, enjoying a big pile of veggies. He immediately started retching and freaking out. Of course I forced him to finish it, this is what dads do on earth after all, but the point is he never would have noticed that his preference wasn't matched. This is likely do to the same reason, he's electing to dislike vegetables, and some are simply electing to be hawkish about quality.
Could be you... And if it is, imagine the years of time on the planet you're costing yourself by stressing about it... Kind sad, if it turns out to be true.
b) The British Commonwealth equates to 'the English-speaking world' more legitimately than the United States alone
Are you bloody kidding? The US, has, by far, the greatest number of primary and first language English speakers than the rest of the world combined. KTHXBIBI.
Not to mention the fact that the US is leading the way in multiple cultural fronts: technology, entertainment, etc.
If we didn't have the most speakers, we'd probably still have the most influence over the development of the language.
With what fucking money? Maybe you don't believe so, but requiring 7 metric buttloads of cash IS a barrier to entry by itself.
This 'barrier' is a natural one, though, and it well outside the topic of what kind of government interference we're going to tolerate.
You'd may as well say that gravity is a barrier to space exploration. It is true, but it applies equally. In a conversation about 'competition', the point is moot.
I'm missing the point of your bizarre statement, and for that I apologize.
To reiterate my point, though, existing regulations are more than enough to meet our needs, given sufficient participation in the market. Additional regulation carries with it costs that likely outweigh our short term gains.
If even one of them decides to throttle, your connection is throttled. And since they're not your ISP, you have no way to 'take your dollars elsewhere' so that the free market can correct the problem.
Those upstream connections are governed by contracts, which are meted out due to choice/competition in the market at that level.
The 'limited choice' scenario makes less and less sense the further up the stream you go.
How would a regulation that says "all packets must be treated equally" prevent other companies from entering the market?
If anything, such a regulation would prevent the current monopolies from pricing new companies out of the market.
Except we're talking about the United States government here. Remember the "______ bill of ______"? Such regulation would be shaped by lobbyists on its way through the sausage mill and wouldn't be nearly as simple as you're purporting here.
But so long as capitalism is the economic rule, these factors are largely moot. They make a terrible reason to inhibit competition, unless we're moving into an entirely different set of economics.
Until wireless technologies get better--more bandwidth, no/higher caps, etc...--a little government regulation will go a long way.
Yes, of course. However, that regulation will cause those wireless technologies to fail to enter the market at all. So the 'until' becomes a 'never', due to some temporary relief.
Are you willing to sacrifice tomorrow's next-get websites and webapps to a set of corporations who will dictate what is and is not allowed on the network?
Yes!
Because, if for no other reason, there are a lot more opportunities for developers than for ISPs.
Slashdot Mirror
You're right, of course, but your point isn't relevant. We're not talking about genuine dislike of a thing in a vacuum. We're talking about noticing, or not noticing as it were, when things are hidden by either cheese or quality programming.
Wouldn't that just be the sunward-side?
To the contrary, a parent has to 'be a dick' all the time. You sort of get used to it.
So 'cold' means only 'has a low temperature'? Because I've been colloquially using it to also mean 'leaches heat'.
due* dammit... Oh well.
And if I'm trying to watch something that's low quality, I'm less likely to enjoy it in the first place. Only if I know I like something and really want to watch it and can't easily change the quality will I put up with low quality.
The study implies that you're electing to dislike things that are of lower quality. You're looking for it, and if you stopped focusing on it, you'd not notice so long as the content was otherwise good.
My oldest son hates vegetables. The other day he accidentally grabbed a slice of supreme pizza. He'd eaten about half to three quarters of it when I pointed out to him that he was, in fact, enjoying a big pile of veggies. He immediately started retching and freaking out. Of course I forced him to finish it, this is what dads do on earth after all, but the point is he never would have noticed that his preference wasn't matched. This is likely do to the same reason, he's electing to dislike vegetables, and some are simply electing to be hawkish about quality.
Could be you... And if it is, imagine the years of time on the planet you're costing yourself by stressing about it... Kind sad, if it turns out to be true.
Okay, stupid question, but isn't space 'cold'? I'm having a hard time picturing why the thing is heating up when it is in outer space.
True. Also it seems elitism functions at a variety of temperatures.
b) The British Commonwealth equates to 'the English-speaking world' more legitimately than the United States alone
Are you bloody kidding? The US, has, by far, the greatest number of primary and first language English speakers than the rest of the world combined. KTHXBIBI.
Not to mention the fact that the US is leading the way in multiple cultural fronts: technology, entertainment, etc.
If we didn't have the most speakers, we'd probably still have the most influence over the development of the language.
It's cool and all, but did they seriously need to gold plate the thing?
I'm not sure he would never emit odors, though. Probably smells like wiring and ozone all the time...
With what fucking money? Maybe you don't believe so, but requiring 7 metric buttloads of cash IS a barrier to entry by itself.
This 'barrier' is a natural one, though, and it well outside the topic of what kind of government interference we're going to tolerate.
You'd may as well say that gravity is a barrier to space exploration. It is true, but it applies equally. In a conversation about 'competition', the point is moot.
I'm missing the point of your bizarre statement, and for that I apologize.
To reiterate my point, though, existing regulations are more than enough to meet our needs, given sufficient participation in the market. Additional regulation carries with it costs that likely outweigh our short term gains.
Not strictly true, but generally true, and suitable for use in a metaphor.
I read the article, and all the follow-up coverage. More closely than you did, it seems.
McChrystal made it absolutely clear that without a distinct shift in policy, the war would take decades to win, if ever.
He got fired for illustrating that Obama and he did not agree, and that there was no 'unified vision' on the war.
Again, Wikileaks eventually came along to tell us why this was the case.
If even one of them decides to throttle, your connection is throttled. And since they're not your ISP, you have no way to 'take your dollars elsewhere' so that the free market can correct the problem.
Those upstream connections are governed by contracts, which are meted out due to choice/competition in the market at that level.
The 'limited choice' scenario makes less and less sense the further up the stream you go.
How would a regulation that says "all packets must be treated equally" prevent other companies from entering the market?
If anything, such a regulation would prevent the current monopolies from pricing new companies out of the market.
Except we're talking about the United States government here. Remember the "______ bill of ______"? Such regulation would be shaped by lobbyists on its way through the sausage mill and wouldn't be nearly as simple as you're purporting here.
In the really real world what you'd be describing is collusion, which isn't necessarily legal.
Unless we're to assume that there's only one 'major ISP' that such a start-up can deal with...
Ehem...
If you don't, it sounds like you have identified a market opportunity.
The law says they have to allow you to compete with them. Go start your own wireless company, and live the American Dream!
But so long as capitalism is the economic rule, these factors are largely moot. They make a terrible reason to inhibit competition, unless we're moving into an entirely different set of economics.
Until wireless technologies get better--more bandwidth, no/higher caps, etc...--a little government regulation will go a long way.
Yes, of course. However, that regulation will cause those wireless technologies to fail to enter the market at all. So the 'until' becomes a 'never', due to some temporary relief.
Bad policy, IMHO.
Are you willing to sacrifice tomorrow's next-get websites and webapps to a set of corporations who will dictate what is and is not allowed on the network?
Yes!
Because, if for no other reason, there are a lot more opportunities for developers than for ISPs.
I'm the he, and I'm talking about how we're being told what to think by those seeking to get a certain type of reaction out of us.
Idiocracy: Government by idiots.
But, but, when we wanted to stop the oil spill, all we had to do was tell the oil company to fix it! Oh, wait...
Who ended up fixing it? Kevin Costner?