"You need not have that fear. It will not happen. It has nothing whatsoever to do with this legislation. It's simply a lie perpetrated by fearmongering radical right-wing neoconservatives to protect that which they value most: the corporations that give them money to lie on the air.
Now that that's cleared up, do you have any realistic concerns?"
I do think there is reason for concern...they're trying to force this on tv and radio, why would they NOT want to force this onto one of the MOST public forums?
Frankly..I like to see a world where they can have a Keith Oberman (sp?) show...where he speaks his mind, and doesn't have to have a rebuttal segment for the 'other side'.
"Well, his explanation might be incorrect, but placing water in a glass jar out in the sun will sterilize it...because of the temperature reached inside. You do have to leave it out pretty long though, dependent on ambient temperature."
And if you put some tea bags in it while sitting it outside, you make some great Sun Tea...
"There is a huge difference between inherent rights and guaranteed rights (like freedom of speech which is guaranteed by the constitution and enforced by the government)."
I'd argue that freedom of speech is an inherent right, that is guaranteed by the constitution and enforced by government.
Remember, the constitution of the US is NOT there to grant you rights, but, rather there to enumerate the LIMITED powers of the federal government. If I recall, there was a good bit of debate about mentioning any of specific rights (like the Bill of Rights) in the Constitution...less some people think that your rights came from it and were enumerated by it, which is not what the founders intended.
And, while the inclusion of specific rights has led to this confusion, it turns out it (IMHO) it is a good thing some of them were specifically listed...in order to make damned sure the govt. didn't overstep its bounds, or at least to give us tools to try to help remedy its overstepping its bounds.
This may be tough to do at this stage, but, at least we haven't become totalitarian.....yet.
"Unfortunately, there is no right to access the internet in USA (unlike recently discussed case of Finland where it is a right), nor a right to own and operate web server."
Actually, it works different in the US. According to the Constitution, basically every citizen is BORN with inherit rights... pretty much you have a right to do everything unless a law is there to forbid it.
So, yes, you do have a right to have internet connectivity. You have a right to opportunity for most everything, you just don't have the right to have someone else pay for it, in general.
But yes, you do have the right to access in the US, the govt. is NOT standing in your way of access. However, what you agree to with a private company is a different matter. You have the right to deal with a company, or you do not. The govt. doesn't have the right really to force you or the company to do anything...unless a law is passed specifically. But rights of the individual are inherit, they are NOT granted by the govt....
"Yes, the government SHOULD be regulating network management policies, BECAUSE my ISP has a monopoly. If the ISP decides to cut me off or throttle me because I've violated an unreasonable policy, the government has every right to step in."
But there is a fear that the govt will go beyond network management policy here...and delve into rule of content on the internet. There are fears they may, once they get their claws in, start doing things like trying to have a 'fairness doctrine' on the internet.
Personally, I like it where ANYONE with an internet connection can get one and spout off any opinion on any subject they like.
I remember the days when on TV, when they gave an editorial opinion, they have to give equal time to another point of view. I'd not like to see this requirement for bloggers and the like...especially on the single, non-financially backed individuals who are using their soapbox to make their voices heard. There are plenty of voices out there with all types of opinions, I'd not like to see the govt. require each little guy to give equal time and space (time and bandwidth can be expensive, and this extra burden might squelch some of the enthusiasm people have for posting their thoughts and findings).
Well, one thing that is a bit worrisome about all of this, are the exceptions to the rule that are being inserted into the policy. From the Ars Technica article on this:
"Are there exceptions? Of course there are, and the ways that the exceptions are put into practice will have a significant effect on US network design.
First, all six principles are subject to "reasonable network management." No one's sure what that means, but the FCC staff have now developed guidance that is far more helpful than the previous (nonexistent) guidance.
Network management is reasonable if it is used
* To manage congestion on networks
* To address harmful traffic (viruses, spam)
* To block unlawful content (child porn)
* To block unlawful transfers of content (copyright infringement)
* For "other reasonable network management practices"
The ambiguity of that last item is striking, and we'll have to see what sorts of things the FCC allows in practice before understanding just how wide this exemption really is.
The second exemption to the rules is for "managed services," another hazy area. FCC staff are defining managed services as offerings that are provided over the same networks as regular Internet access but that "differ from broadband Internet access service in ways that suggest a different policy approach." This includes things like voice services and telemedicine, but it's obviously a pretty broad category, and the FCC is asking for guidance on how to define it.
It appears that the agency is looking for ways to let telcos and cable companies offer additional, prioritized services over a single line, things like analog and digital voice, cable TV, and low-latency connections for medical use.
The rules apply to every Internet connection, wired and wireless, though what is "reasonable" may vary by connection type and even by network speed. As Commissioner Michael Copps put it in his supporting remarks, "What is reasonable today might be unreasonable tomorrow--and vice versa" as networks expand."
So, it isn't like this is truly in the best interest of the consumer only as it seems to be on surface.
While I want something to ensure that there IS net neutrality, I'm not sure if this is the way to do it. Nor am I sure that the FCC even HAS the authority to regulate the internet in this method? Wouldn't legislation be the more direct way to set the rules in stone? The FCC can change their mind and rules will be bent depending on who is in charge that year....we've seen it before.
"something is wrong in a society that values children so little that women of lower incomes *must* go back to work before their children are of school age."
So, "I" am supposed to pay to raise their mistakes because they couldn't insist their man wear a rubber or else not fuck?
Geez, I don't have any kids because I don't want to spend my time and money to raise them...why should I pay to do this for someone else??
"That's because there's a sexy woman dancing around his lap, trying to turn him on, and yet there's a big guy in the corner who'll kick his ass and throw him out if he looks like he's about to touch her."
Not if you have enough money...and know how to 'haggle'.
"It's a mistake to think that people will be forever stuck with current technology or that their habits and desires will never change."
It is a different thing for people to naturally migrate to new and newer technologies, but, it is quite a different matter for corporation to try to force people to move a particular tech just because it is in the corporations best interest. Migration and mandates are two different things....
"Not everyone has radio. Not everyone has TV. Not everyone has color TV. Not everyone has cable. Not everyone has Internet access. Not everyone has a VHS player. Not everyone has a DVD player. Not everyone has a blue-ray player."
Well, not quite what I was going for.
Actually, I'd dare guess that most people DO have at least one TV in the house, hell, you can even drive by the projects down here, and see TV's on in the places. But not everyone has them hooked to the internet.
While not in a majority, I'd dare say a large number of those people with TV's have a dvd player, if I recall correctly, DVD's really sold quite well early one...most people with VHSes replaced with w dvd player, but, not everyone has those or the TV hooked to the internet. That was more to my point. At this point I can't see an internet based DRM system gaining a large foothold for homes in the US...not a system like this, why would people jump for it? Hell, it is hard enough getting people to buy HD tv and blu-ray...at least for the majority of Joe Q. Public....
"This sounds pretty much exactly like Valve's Steam service, extended to other forms of entertainment. Seems like a lot of people have little problem with Steam, so not sure why they'd have a problem with Keychest? I guess one concern I could come up with is that, I suspect Valve is a *lot* more committed to Steam, than Disney might be to Keychest. While Disney themselves is probably at little risk of going out of business any time soon, I wouldn't be overly surprised if Disney tried this, then a year or two later decided to pull the plug and try something else, when the service doesn't instantly make them hundreds of millions of dollars."
Another thing...not everyone has their TV/Entertainment system hooked up the internet....nor do they want to?
If both Sun and Oracle are US companies....why do they have to get permission from the EU for this purchase? I can see them having to answer to the US, but, why do they have to answer to any other company? I've certainly not heard of foreign companies having to get permission to merge from the US....?
"I'd love the *two* joystick control mechanism, like some arcade games use."
If driving a Toyota would liken unto playing a round of "Robotron"...I'd gladly buy one. Blasting everyone around me on the highway, clearing a path....
"I do the same as Slashdot.org does - Make the changes on live code, except a little downtime and weird effects and then try to fix"
That's not that far from the truth in MANY places and projects I've seen.
I've actually come to the conclusion, that on many govt/DoD projects, that the dev. environment in fact becomes the test and production environment!!
I learned that it really pays, when spec'ing out the hardware and software that you need, to get as much as they will pay for for the 'dev' machines....because, it will inevitably become the production server as soon as stuff is working on it, the deadline hits, and there is suddenly no more funding for a proper test/prod environment.
Slashdot Mirror
Now that that's cleared up, do you have any realistic concerns?"
I do think there is reason for concern...they're trying to force this on tv and radio, why would they NOT want to force this onto one of the MOST public forums?
Frankly..I like to see a world where they can have a Keith Oberman (sp?) show...where he speaks his mind, and doesn't have to have a rebuttal segment for the 'other side'.
And if you put some tea bags in it while sitting it outside, you make some great Sun Tea...
YUM!
I'd argue that freedom of speech is an inherent right, that is guaranteed by the constitution and enforced by government.
Remember, the constitution of the US is NOT there to grant you rights, but, rather there to enumerate the LIMITED powers of the federal government. If I recall, there was a good bit of debate about mentioning any of specific rights (like the Bill of Rights) in the Constitution...less some people think that your rights came from it and were enumerated by it, which is not what the founders intended.
And, while the inclusion of specific rights has led to this confusion, it turns out it (IMHO) it is a good thing some of them were specifically listed...in order to make damned sure the govt. didn't overstep its bounds, or at least to give us tools to try to help remedy its overstepping its bounds.
This may be tough to do at this stage, but, at least we haven't become totalitarian.....yet.
What exactly are these "moral" issues you and others keep talking about? What does morals have to do with making money to make a living?
"Hey, Unbooboo....I'm starving, naked and wet....but, man, I'm getting like 10 Mbit download speeds!!"
Actually, it works different in the US. According to the Constitution, basically every citizen is BORN with inherit rights... pretty much you have a right to do everything unless a law is there to forbid it.
So, yes, you do have a right to have internet connectivity. You have a right to opportunity for most everything, you just don't have the right to have someone else pay for it, in general.
But yes, you do have the right to access in the US, the govt. is NOT standing in your way of access. However, what you agree to with a private company is a different matter. You have the right to deal with a company, or you do not. The govt. doesn't have the right really to force you or the company to do anything...unless a law is passed specifically. But rights of the individual are inherit, they are NOT granted by the govt....
But there is a fear that the govt will go beyond network management policy here...and delve into rule of content on the internet. There are fears they may, once they get their claws in, start doing things like trying to have a 'fairness doctrine' on the internet.
Personally, I like it where ANYONE with an internet connection can get one and spout off any opinion on any subject they like.
I remember the days when on TV, when they gave an editorial opinion, they have to give equal time to another point of view. I'd not like to see this requirement for bloggers and the like...especially on the single, non-financially backed individuals who are using their soapbox to make their voices heard. There are plenty of voices out there with all types of opinions, I'd not like to see the govt. require each little guy to give equal time and space (time and bandwidth can be expensive, and this extra burden might squelch some of the enthusiasm people have for posting their thoughts and findings).
"Are there exceptions? Of course there are, and the ways that the exceptions are put into practice will have a significant effect on US network design.
First, all six principles are subject to "reasonable network management." No one's sure what that means, but the FCC staff have now developed guidance that is far more helpful than the previous (nonexistent) guidance.
Network management is reasonable if it is used
* To manage congestion on networks
* To address harmful traffic (viruses, spam)
* To block unlawful content (child porn)
* To block unlawful transfers of content (copyright infringement)
* For "other reasonable network management practices"
The ambiguity of that last item is striking, and we'll have to see what sorts of things the FCC allows in practice before understanding just how wide this exemption really is.
The second exemption to the rules is for "managed services," another hazy area. FCC staff are defining managed services as offerings that are provided over the same networks as regular Internet access but that "differ from broadband Internet access service in ways that suggest a different policy approach." This includes things like voice services and telemedicine, but it's obviously a pretty broad category, and the FCC is asking for guidance on how to define it.
It appears that the agency is looking for ways to let telcos and cable companies offer additional, prioritized services over a single line, things like analog and digital voice, cable TV, and low-latency connections for medical use.
The rules apply to every Internet connection, wired and wireless, though what is "reasonable" may vary by connection type and even by network speed. As Commissioner Michael Copps put it in his supporting remarks, "What is reasonable today might be unreasonable tomorrow--and vice versa" as networks expand."
So, it isn't like this is truly in the best interest of the consumer only as it seems to be on surface.
While I want something to ensure that there IS net neutrality, I'm not sure if this is the way to do it. Nor am I sure that the FCC even HAS the authority to regulate the internet in this method? Wouldn't legislation be the more direct way to set the rules in stone? The FCC can change their mind and rules will be bent depending on who is in charge that year....we've seen it before.
A book on 'irrational thinking'....aka "Chicks Think the Darndest Things".
Exactly why would they have to do this? I"m saving and investing for my retirement...isn't everyone?
So, "I" am supposed to pay to raise their mistakes because they couldn't insist their man wear a rubber or else not fuck?
Geez, I don't have any kids because I don't want to spend my time and money to raise them...why should I pay to do this for someone else??
Not if you have enough money...and know how to 'haggle'.
What I don't understand is....why is yahoo now apologizing for this?!?!?
Can you give some info and/or links to what 'bridge mode' is? New term to me...
It is a different thing for people to naturally migrate to new and newer technologies, but, it is quite a different matter for corporation to try to force people to move a particular tech just because it is in the corporations best interest. Migration and mandates are two different things....
Well, not quite what I was going for.
Actually, I'd dare guess that most people DO have at least one TV in the house, hell, you can even drive by the projects down here, and see TV's on in the places. But not everyone has them hooked to the internet.
While not in a majority, I'd dare say a large number of those people with TV's have a dvd player, if I recall correctly, DVD's really sold quite well early one...most people with VHSes replaced with w dvd player, but, not everyone has those or the TV hooked to the internet. That was more to my point. At this point I can't see an internet based DRM system gaining a large foothold for homes in the US...not a system like this, why would people jump for it? Hell, it is hard enough getting people to buy HD tv and blu-ray...at least for the majority of Joe Q. Public....
Another thing...not everyone has their TV/Entertainment system hooked up the internet....nor do they want to?
If both Sun and Oracle are US companies....why do they have to get permission from the EU for this purchase? I can see them having to answer to the US, but, why do they have to answer to any other company? I've certainly not heard of foreign companies having to get permission to merge from the US....?
Did they quit making the S2000?
I always thought them nice cars, but, wouldn't buy one since they didn't have an analog dashboard (gotta have hands on my speedometer and tach).
If driving a Toyota would liken unto playing a round of "Robotron"...I'd gladly buy one. Blasting everyone around me on the highway, clearing a path....
Wasn't that way when I worked there in food service while in school in AR. I had to fill out nothing health-wise in AR for a restaurant job.
That's not that far from the truth in MANY places and projects I've seen.
I've actually come to the conclusion, that on many govt/DoD projects, that the dev. environment in fact becomes the test and production environment!!
I learned that it really pays, when spec'ing out the hardware and software that you need, to get as much as they will pay for for the 'dev' machines....because, it will inevitably become the production server as soon as stuff is working on it, the deadline hits, and there is suddenly no more funding for a proper test/prod environment.
Now..I don't have to get a shot, are we taking into consideration here of the people already out there that do NOT need to be vaccinated?
What state do you live in where they require/force healthcare workers to get a Hepatitis B shot??
I've never encountered that before anywhere I've lived....I know doctors in several states.
Some of the other posters here are advocating that is should not be voluntary for health care workers.
That would be the case of losing liberty.