...don't forget to pay your $699 licensing fee, you cocksmoking teabaggers!
Seriously, it sounds like they've got it all, even down to the "sue your (ex-) customers" part. I suppose that means that someone should check that the monopoly privileges in question really do belong to them.
It does not matter what you think personally, if you say it under the company name, (your name is the company name if you are an employee), then you are representing the company at all times.
If you have something to say then say it under another name.
the right of a non-state capitalist, for profit corporation to build structures on land where the land owners and local government have decreed they want no such structures?
that is COMMUNIST.
No, I think it's actually closer to fascist. Communists don't have "non-state capitalist, for profit corporations", remember?
As for the "point" of copyright, it is to give authors a temporary monopoly as incentive to create art that will eventually fall into the possession of all the People & enrich everybody.
It seems some in the US Congress and EU Parliament have forgotten that.
I'm not sure that's true outside of the US. Here that is the purpose ("to promote the progress of science and the useful arts"), but I think originally it was supposed to help by replacing previous stronger but more ad-hoc monopoly rights.
That page also has an interesting (anonymous) quote from when the first copyrights started to expire in 1735: "I see no reason for granting a further term now, which will not hold as well for granting it again and again, as often as the old ones expire... it will in effect be establishing a perpetual monopoly, a thing deservedly odious in the eye of the law; it will be a great cramp to trade, a discouragement to learning, no benefit to authors, but a general tax on the public; and all this only to increase the private gain of booksellers.".
If that's not different from open source then nobody would have needed an open source movement in the first place.
It is one of many kinds of open source.
Putting something in the public domain meets the requirements listed here: http://www.opensource.org/osd.html . It also meets the FSF's definition of "free software".
The reason for having an open source movement or free software movement is that people were starting to keep their software under restrictive licenses. The movements were meant to encourage people to not do this, whether by using less restrictive licenses or public domain.
Or to have a list of emergency numbers, say the fire department, police department, 911, suicide hotline, etc. They already have to keep track of what number you call for billing purposes (and to actually route the call)
So we're back to "so what makes it wrong?". You say AOL and MSN aren't good analogies, fine. But that does nothing to answer the question, which is why shouldn't your ISP be allowed to offer access packages that aren't the entire internet?
but the ISP itself must never throttle any traffic below that limit without explicit consent from the end user
Besides explicit throttling, this also needs to include that they maintain sufficient network capacity and uplink capacity to meet the minimum except in unusual circumstances (such as hardware failure, peering dispute, some newsworthy event that has everyone trying to watch online CNN at once and using 3x typical peak bandwidth, etc).
These ISPs want stipulations to allow them to filter content or more accurately read all the information you send and receive and prioritize it. Which may eventually lead to filtering or using all the information you ever send over the internet for dubious causes.
This is not what TFA says AT&T is asking for. It's also an invalid slippery-slope argument.
Or allowing the phone company to prioritize you phone connection based on the type of conversations you hold.
If someone's trying to call 911, I'd think the phone company should drop someone's chat with their girlfriend if there otherwise wouldn't be capacity for that 911 call.
Which variant of "net neutrality" are you talking about? The one I'm familiar with shouldn't prevent you paying your ISP extra to be able to prioritize your traffic, it should only prohibit your ISP charging third-party websites for being available to you.
So what exactly are they lying about, hmm? "If you define net neutrality to include X, it's a bad idea." "WTF #$@#%$ net neutrality doesn't mean X you ^&#^ liar!" Um, yeah, "net neutrality" has never been well enough defined to say that. That's why you should argue over specific points rather than generic ill-defined terms. "That's fine, because we don't mean it to include X. It includes Y, which is distinct from X because of Z."
AT&T objections here, while worrisome on their own, don't necessarily conflict with the principles of net neutrality.
I'm not sure they're even worrisome, from the article it sounds almost like everyone's talking past eachother. Or just talking about different things where only the news people think they're trying to talk about the same thing.
The consumer-protection people say ISPs shouldn't be able to alter service levels based on how much the external endpoint has paid. AT&T says ISPs should be able to alter service levels based on how much the internal endpoint has paid or what preferences the internal endpoint has expressed. These are perfectly compatible and both make perfect sense.
The only problem would be if AT&T is using the internal-endpoint argument to push for the ability to make external-endpoint actions. But I expect that if that were the case we'd be hearing stories highlighting their duplicity, so...
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously, it sounds like they've got it all, even down to the "sue your (ex-) customers" part. I suppose that means that someone should check that the monopoly privileges in question really do belong to them.
I'd expect it to be related to knowing that the graph follows ordinary plane geometry and has straight paths between the nodes.
It does not matter what you think personally, if you say it under the company name, (your name is the company name if you are an employee), then you are representing the company at all times. If you have something to say then say it under another name.
As someone else linked upthread, Fuck that shit.
are you going to stop them?
No, I'm going to laugh at them. I thought that was the whole point of it being posted here, actually.
you are NOTHING
Well yeah, but the (lack of) meaning of life is a bit oversized of a topic for here.
the right of a non-state capitalist, for profit corporation to build structures on land where the land owners and local government have decreed they want no such structures?
that is COMMUNIST.
No, I think it's actually closer to fascist. Communists don't have "non-state capitalist, for profit corporations", remember?
It's not a dictatorship, people voted in place the officials that made this happen, it's what most of them want.
1. Don't local elections tend to have really lousy turnout? It's hard to say "most" people want this, if most people don't bother to vote.
2. If people do think they want this, do they understand the (obvious) implications of what they agreed to?
you forget to factor in that the town HAS THE RIGHT TO DO WHATEVER THEY WANT.
No, that's irrelevant because it does nothing to reduce the stupidity and deservingness-of-ridicule of what they decided to do.
...come with Active Directory.
It would be against microsoft's philosophy to build better, more secure systems.
This is of course why Windows 7 has no security advantages over XP, and XP has no advantages over 98.</sarcasm>
As for the "point" of copyright, it is to give authors a temporary monopoly as incentive to create art that will eventually fall into the possession of all the People & enrich everybody.
It seems some in the US Congress and EU Parliament have forgotten that.
I'm not sure that's true outside of the US. Here that is the purpose ("to promote the progress of science and the useful arts"), but I think originally it was supposed to help by replacing previous stronger but more ad-hoc monopoly rights.
That page also has an interesting (anonymous) quote from when the first copyrights started to expire in 1735: "I see no reason for granting a further term now, which will not hold as well for granting it again and again, as often as the old ones expire... it will in effect be establishing a perpetual monopoly, a thing deservedly odious in the eye of the law; it will be a great cramp to trade, a discouragement to learning, no benefit to authors, but a general tax on the public; and all this only to increase the private gain of booksellers.".
The goal for anyone drinking wine, beer or liquor should be to get drunk.
No, the goal should be to drink just enough to get whatever health benefits are being posited this week.
Anyone who can tie their own shoes can set up a Windows server.
Finally, an explanation for the size of my spam folder!
I thought there had been a couple similar stories here before.
If that's not different from open source then nobody would have needed an open source movement in the first place.
It is one of many kinds of open source.
Putting something in the public domain meets the requirements listed here: http://www.opensource.org/osd.html . It also meets the FSF's definition of "free software".
The reason for having an open source movement or free software movement is that people were starting to keep their software under restrictive licenses. The movements were meant to encourage people to not do this, whether by using less restrictive licenses or public domain.
Perhaps it's because they are selling you Internet access packages?
So why is it a "net neutrality" issue, instead of a "truth in advertising" issue?
Or to have a list of emergency numbers, say the fire department, police department, 911, suicide hotline, etc. They already have to keep track of what number you call for billing purposes (and to actually route the call)
So we're back to "so what makes it wrong?". You say AOL and MSN aren't good analogies, fine. But that does nothing to answer the question, which is why shouldn't your ISP be allowed to offer access packages that aren't the entire internet?
but the ISP itself must never throttle any traffic below that limit without explicit consent from the end user
Besides explicit throttling, this also needs to include that they maintain sufficient network capacity and uplink capacity to meet the minimum except in unusual circumstances (such as hardware failure, peering dispute, some newsworthy event that has everyone trying to watch online CNN at once and using 3x typical peak bandwidth, etc).
But if you actually read TFA, that's not what they're asking for.
These ISPs want stipulations to allow them to filter content or more accurately read all the information you send and receive and prioritize it. Which may eventually lead to filtering or using all the information you ever send over the internet for dubious causes.
This is not what TFA says AT&T is asking for. It's also an invalid slippery-slope argument.
Or allowing the phone company to prioritize you phone connection based on the type of conversations you hold.
If someone's trying to call 911, I'd think the phone company should drop someone's chat with their girlfriend if there otherwise wouldn't be capacity for that 911 call.
Which variant of "net neutrality" are you talking about? The one I'm familiar with shouldn't prevent you paying your ISP extra to be able to prioritize your traffic, it should only prohibit your ISP charging third-party websites for being available to you.
So what exactly are they lying about, hmm? "If you define net neutrality to include X, it's a bad idea." "WTF #$@#%$ net neutrality doesn't mean X you ^&#^ liar!" Um, yeah, "net neutrality" has never been well enough defined to say that. That's why you should argue over specific points rather than generic ill-defined terms. "That's fine, because we don't mean it to include X. It includes Y, which is distinct from X because of Z."
Sorry, but WTF is that supposed to mean?
So what makes it wrong? Should the old AOL and MSN "walled gardens" have been illegal? They seem to have failed just fine on their own...
AT&T objections here, while worrisome on their own, don't necessarily conflict with the principles of net neutrality.
I'm not sure they're even worrisome, from the article it sounds almost like everyone's talking past eachother. Or just talking about different things where only the news people think they're trying to talk about the same thing.
The consumer-protection people say ISPs shouldn't be able to alter service levels based on how much the external endpoint has paid. AT&T says ISPs should be able to alter service levels based on how much the internal endpoint has paid or what preferences the internal endpoint has expressed. These are perfectly compatible and both make perfect sense.
The only problem would be if AT&T is using the internal-endpoint argument to push for the ability to make external-endpoint actions. But I expect that if that were the case we'd be hearing stories highlighting their duplicity, so...
Yeah, but SQLite isn't even open source -- it's straight up public domain software.
It sounds like you're confusing "open source" with "copyleft".