Net neutrality is how the internet has always been run (for the most part), and it was in mind for those who created it. This has been precedent for a long time, and as such should be as good as law.
Not really: the Internet hasn't been 100% neutral regarding packet priority for a long, long time. It's always been necessary to give some traffic priority over others, just to make the network work more efficiently. What's changed is that certain large corporations want to use their ability to block or degrade service as a method of extortion. That's where I draw the line.
What you're basically saing is this: "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." And I agree... the Internet has worked wonderfully well to date, and we screw around with it at our own risk. The problem is that there are too many powerful people in both the private sector and government that consider the Internet to have been broken by design, to be far too egalitarian, because it is not under the strict control to which they feel entitled.
So... they're going to fix it for us, whether we want them to or not (whether our economy and our way of life survive the process is another story entirely.) So far as I'm concerned, anyone advocating network-wide censorship, as AT&T is doing, should be put down like a rabid dog. Even then, there may be the possibility of further contagion, so they should be soaked in gasoline, set aflame, and allowed to burn down to ash. It's the only way to be sure.
We've got to figure out a friendly way to do it, there's no doubt about it.
That is a non sequitur, my friends. There is no "friendly" way to deny people what they want... it's very much an either-or proposition. Either we're going to allow private corporations to censor the flow of information in this country, legal or otherwise, or we aren't. Period. Dot. The original Communications Act of 1934 got it right: telecom providers got to have immunity from prosecution that might result from the transmission of illegal communications, in exchange for leaving said communications the Hell alone.
God I hate those people. This wouldn't be happening if the Feds hadn't screwed us over once again, by not requiring common carrier status for ISPs. This is ridiculous.
What're they going to do? Haul the laptops off someplace and spend an afternoon checking every directory and making sure the files are really what they're named?
No, what will happen is some asshole tech company will sell the Feds on an "Anti-Terrorism Border-Defense Cyberscanning System". They'll just pull the drive out of your laptop, drop it into this gadget, and and let it do the fishing automatically while-you-wait. If it comes up with a red flag (say, potential kiddie-porn, nuclear secrets or whatever) you get cavity-searched and are never heard from again.
There's a couple billion to be made right there, I'd say. All you have to do to make it work is teach the guards how to rip a drive out of a laptop without static-zapping it.
Dude, you said, "However, fair use is NOT a law." It is a law. That's all I was taking exception to, and I was very clear to point out that it probably doesn't cover personal copying, and furthermore referenced the law that does.
True, but I'm sure you could build an exact Model T car VERY cheaply today. But you won't have leather seats, A/C, power doors, windows, or locks, airbags, seatbelts, any electronics, etc.
Well, some of it is, certainly... but a lot of it is from people of other countries that don't much like the things Congress has authorized in our name over the past forty years or so, and have decided to judge all Americans by the actions of those few. I guess it's just easier that way. Of course, these are the same kinds of people that will be up in arms if we attempt to judge them by the actions of their government, or by any other generalized metric (i.e., "all French are cowards.") Hypocrisy is rarely a defensible position in my book.
I'm sure they haven't thought of having a signal broadcast from a satellite to turn off the anti-missile technology on a plane-by-plane basis, fully encrypted up the wazoo to prevent unauthorized use.
I'm sure they have, but on the other hand, what if the hijacker climbs down into the avionics room and bypasses the security? Or just disconnects the antenna? The GP has a valid point. Such a defense could easily work against us, and given the way the government has been handling security theater to date, it probably would be. Besides, we are talking about putting military defense systems on civilian aircraft, under civilian maintenance programs. That doesn't seem wise to me. High-powered lasers on aircraft also doesn't sound wise to me: a specular reflection off an incoming missile or another aircraft could blind a lot of people.
So now we've gone from a rant against urban sprawl to trashing the world. A little focus would be appreciated in discussions such as this.
Furthermore, people that live in the suburbs do pay for the cost, actually... they pay it in higher taxes and higher costs for everything. So what's your point, again?
A high-technology industrial economy is dangerous. It's the trade-off we make for having all thing good things it brings us. Some people don't understand that.
A friend of mine used to work for the old Baxter-Travenol pharmaceutical operation. In the building he worked in, he said that a few floors up was a facility that was making intermediate compounds (amines, I believe he said, but this was twenty-odd years ago so my memory could be faulty) used in the production of certain drugs. This was a completely sealed operation, because the stuff was so volatile and so poisonous, that if even a few teaspoonfuls got out it would kill everyone in the building in a few minutes.
I've spent almost thirty years working in U.S. industry (process control and data acquisition software, mostly.) Let me tell you, carbon monoxide is positively healthful compared to some of the really nasty stuff used to make the products we enjoy. If I had a dollar for all the times I was told "yeah, if a couple drops of this shit got out we'd all be dead" I could retire early.
NASA wanted a pen that would work in zero G; spent millions on RnD
The russians used a pencil
I'll let someone else correct your misapprehension on this issue.
just getting one or two million people out of suburbs into nyc lifesytles would do more for the enviroment then a million years of Rnd
What about those people who just don't want to live in a city? I don't: I grew up in a small town and would be abjectly miserable living in a city. Offer all the tax incentives you want and I would still never choose to live in a big city. Or should we simply force a few million people to live a certain way for the greater good? That might work in some countries, but wouldn't go over very well here.
I don't know what you have against technological advancement, but if you look at this with the proper perspective, you'll realize that the only hope we have is better technology. That will only happen through significant expenditures in R&D. Sure, you cannot predict that any given line of research will bear fruit, but on the whole our investment in R&D has paid big dividends for the human race, dividends worth many times the cost of the research itself. Simply dropping those efforts in the name of conservation would be insanely foolish.
Thanks. The amazing thing is, it's pretty much true. That either means that there are a lot of hostile foreigners with mod points, or a lot of Americans that really don't like their own country. Maybe both, I don't know. What's hilarious is when I get some irrational highly-bigoted anti-American reply that refers to my tagline... and gets a +5 Insightful. The irony seems lost on them though.
That is precisely the problem here in the US as well. I think we may have invented it, but then we're famous for always thinking that...
You obviously don't know many Brits then...;)
Actually, it's Russians who are famous for thinking that. I mean, Ensign Chekov would always say, "but of course, Keptin... it was a Russian inwention", and everyone knows that the laser was invented at the Lightnik flashlight factory just outside of Moscow.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, if he's oxidizing his hydrogen, I'd have to say he's all wet.
Net neutrality is how the internet has always been run (for the most part), and it was in mind for those who created it. This has been precedent for a long time, and as such should be as good as law.
... the Internet has worked wonderfully well to date, and we screw around with it at our own risk. The problem is that there are too many powerful people in both the private sector and government that consider the Internet to have been broken by design, to be far too egalitarian, because it is not under the strict control to which they feel entitled.
... they're going to fix it for us, whether we want them to or not (whether our economy and our way of life survive the process is another story entirely.) So far as I'm concerned, anyone advocating network-wide censorship, as AT&T is doing, should be put down like a rabid dog. Even then, there may be the possibility of further contagion, so they should be soaked in gasoline, set aflame, and allowed to burn down to ash. It's the only way to be sure.
Not really: the Internet hasn't been 100% neutral regarding packet priority for a long, long time. It's always been necessary to give some traffic priority over others, just to make the network work more efficiently. What's changed is that certain large corporations want to use their ability to block or degrade service as a method of extortion. That's where I draw the line.
What you're basically saing is this: "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." And I agree
So
They're just too dangerous to have around.
We've got to figure out a friendly way to do it, there's no doubt about it.
... it's very much an either-or proposition. Either we're going to allow private corporations to censor the flow of information in this country, legal or otherwise, or we aren't. Period. Dot. The original Communications Act of 1934 got it right: telecom providers got to have immunity from prosecution that might result from the transmission of illegal communications, in exchange for leaving said communications the Hell alone.
That is a non sequitur, my friends. There is no "friendly" way to deny people what they want
God I hate those people. This wouldn't be happening if the Feds hadn't screwed us over once again, by not requiring common carrier status for ISPs. This is ridiculous.
What're they going to do? Haul the laptops off someplace and spend an afternoon checking every directory and making sure the files are really what they're named?
No, what will happen is some asshole tech company will sell the Feds on an "Anti-Terrorism Border-Defense Cyberscanning System". They'll just pull the drive out of your laptop, drop it into this gadget, and and let it do the fishing automatically while-you-wait. If it comes up with a red flag (say, potential kiddie-porn, nuclear secrets or whatever) you get cavity-searched and are never heard from again.
There's a couple billion to be made right there, I'd say. All you have to do to make it work is teach the guards how to rip a drive out of a laptop without static-zapping it.
Okay, so that's a stumbling block.
Dude, you said, "However, fair use is NOT a law." It is a law. That's all I was taking exception to, and I was very clear to point out that it probably doesn't cover personal copying, and furthermore referenced the law that does.
Whoever said hackers couldn't be useful?
Indiana Jones and the Googlers of the Lost Ark
True, but I'm sure you could build an exact Model T car VERY cheaply today. But you won't have leather seats, A/C, power doors, windows, or locks, airbags, seatbelts, any electronics, etc.
Yeah. But it wouldn't have to be black.
The jellied gasoline salvo is on the way, with a thermite chaser.
I checked out the link ... it does look cool. How much did it cost you?
I see now that the Max Headroom TV series was more prophetic than most people realized at the time.
I already have an AnyPlay. It's called a "laptop".
when you are conscienceless.
Well, some of it is, certainly ... but a lot of it is from people of other countries that don't much like the things Congress has authorized in our name over the past forty years or so, and have decided to judge all Americans by the actions of those few. I guess it's just easier that way. Of course, these are the same kinds of people that will be up in arms if we attempt to judge them by the actions of their government, or by any other generalized metric (i.e., "all French are cowards.") Hypocrisy is rarely a defensible position in my book.
Apparently somebody with mod points didn't get your joke.
I'm sure they haven't thought of having a signal broadcast from a satellite to turn off the anti-missile technology on a plane-by-plane basis, fully encrypted up the wazoo to prevent unauthorized use.
I'm sure they have, but on the other hand, what if the hijacker climbs down into the avionics room and bypasses the security? Or just disconnects the antenna? The GP has a valid point. Such a defense could easily work against us, and given the way the government has been handling security theater to date, it probably would be. Besides, we are talking about putting military defense systems on civilian aircraft, under civilian maintenance programs. That doesn't seem wise to me. High-powered lasers on aircraft also doesn't sound wise to me: a specular reflection off an incoming missile or another aircraft could blind a lot of people.
Christ, you people are as bad as the average Trekkie.
Besides I was just watching some Stargate reruns and got a little confused.
what right do you have to trash the world ?
... they pay it in higher taxes and higher costs for everything. So what's your point, again?
So now we've gone from a rant against urban sprawl to trashing the world. A little focus would be appreciated in discussions such as this.
Furthermore, people that live in the suburbs do pay for the cost, actually
It's still lame though, considering what HDMI is replacing. I shouldn't need to strain-relief a connector just to keep it from falling out.
A high-technology industrial economy is dangerous. It's the trade-off we make for having all thing good things it brings us. Some people don't understand that.
A friend of mine used to work for the old Baxter-Travenol pharmaceutical operation. In the building he worked in, he said that a few floors up was a facility that was making intermediate compounds (amines, I believe he said, but this was twenty-odd years ago so my memory could be faulty) used in the production of certain drugs. This was a completely sealed operation, because the stuff was so volatile and so poisonous, that if even a few teaspoonfuls got out it would kill everyone in the building in a few minutes.
I've spent almost thirty years working in U.S. industry (process control and data acquisition software, mostly.) Let me tell you, carbon monoxide is positively healthful compared to some of the really nasty stuff used to make the products we enjoy. If I had a dollar for all the times I was told "yeah, if a couple drops of this shit got out we'd all be dead" I could retire early.
720x480? Hell, he's just as big a goof in NTSC.
NASA wanted a pen that would work in zero G; spent millions on RnD
The russians used a pencil
I'll let someone else correct your misapprehension on this issue.
just getting one or two million people out of suburbs into nyc lifesytles would do more for the enviroment then a million years of Rnd
What about those people who just don't want to live in a city? I don't: I grew up in a small town and would be abjectly miserable living in a city. Offer all the tax incentives you want and I would still never choose to live in a big city. Or should we simply force a few million people to live a certain way for the greater good? That might work in some countries, but wouldn't go over very well here.
I don't know what you have against technological advancement, but if you look at this with the proper perspective, you'll realize that the only hope we have is better technology. That will only happen through significant expenditures in R&D. Sure, you cannot predict that any given line of research will bear fruit, but on the whole our investment in R&D has paid big dividends for the human race, dividends worth many times the cost of the research itself. Simply dropping those efforts in the name of conservation would be insanely foolish.
Thanks. The amazing thing is, it's pretty much true. That either means that there are a lot of hostile foreigners with mod points, or a lot of Americans that really don't like their own country. Maybe both, I don't know. What's hilarious is when I get some irrational highly-bigoted anti-American reply that refers to my tagline ... and gets a +5 Insightful. The irony seems lost on them though.
Scientists Recycle CO2 with Sunlight to Make Fuel
... all this thing does right now is produce carbon monoxide.
They're leaving the production of actual liquid fuel to other people
That is precisely the problem here in the US as well. I think we may have invented it, but then we're famous for always thinking that...
;)
... it was a Russian inwention", and everyone knows that the laser was invented at the Lightnik flashlight factory just outside of Moscow.
You obviously don't know many Brits then...
Actually, it's Russians who are famous for thinking that. I mean, Ensign Chekov would always say, "but of course, Keptin