Who is actually doing this now, in the absence of regulation? If it did happen, do you mean to the extent that would degrade the other traffic noticably -- to its average consumer -- or would it mainly only be detectable using metering tools in your hypothetical scenario?
I believe that you are obfuscating the issue, and I sincerely wonder why. The primary issue driving the net neutrality conflict is that of paid prioritization- This issue is one that will play out with results seen in a decade or so, more in the wireless market, IMO, as the market evolves. A cable-like, tiered access to content plan is preferred by the carriers, now that they've seen the money to be made. A quote from AT&T VP Robert Quinn gives an idea of how the major carriers would prefer the conflict to resolve, as he argued that banning paid prioritization would be a "colossal mistake that would harm countless businesses and their customers." Always in the consumers' corner, that AT&T. Once paid prioritization is in place for consumers, what then?
No need for ad-hominums
No need to presume victimization. I said nothing about your personal characteristics or beliefs unrelated to the subject. I said that "you don't have a clue (about this subject) other than the drivel (your argument) that you spouted". I do retract this statement, however, as the argument you did give above now sounds less like cluelessness than the astroturfing and argument redirection I've read in the past from persons close to the telecom industry. Not saying that you actually are, mind you, but it sounds like it.
The situation with broadband is not like air travel. Tell me how it compares when a broadband carrier, formerly nothing more than a neutral transporter of internet traffic, decides to become a content provider as well and prioritizes it's own traffic over that of another content provider? Tell us exactly how more unthrottled, source-neutral, and content-neutral bandwidth will arise from less regulation in this case. My guess is that you don't have a clue beyond the abstract drivel you've spouted.
He blackmailed the Puppeteers regarding their home world's lack of a moon- I assume part of the contract released him from the memory-wipe clause, as he was able to tell the story to Greg Pelton while playing Gin on the way back to Earth from Jinx. I believe he also had Ander Smittarasheed ghost-write the story for him.
.
...You know what's sorry about this? I've read and re-read Known Space / Kzinti stories so many times that this stuff is lodged in my head and emerges whenever someone makes the slightest reference to it.
... when it comes to deciding who to give power to.
Democrat and Republican "leadership" represent different appendages of the same beast. The primary differences between the two lay in the different opportunities offered to members for acquiring wealth and power
Your statements make sense on a certain level. However teaching a logical concept that is meant to take the place of a powerful emotional state on the mind's stage typically requires more than a succinct and logically correct argument. Human beings are known for their irrational behavior and beliefs- Beliefs that often do not succumb easily to rational statements. Many times empathy and emotion-based concepts will produce better outcomes when dealing with a child's problems than could purely rational statements, however accurate.
While I agree with you in principle, in practice I have found the approach you mention above to be ineffective.
The vast majority of humans I've dealt with, children as well as adults, are emotional creatures prone to bouts of rational behavior, and must often be counseled at that "level" when dealing with painful beliefs that incorrectly model the world around them.
Which is who I'm speaking out against. I know this because it's obvious. But that's why I believe these people need to be taught that there is no need to act in such a manner.
This is a reasonable idea, and is important to the discussion- Could you therefore detail how these people could be taught?
Okey dokey, Robespierre... Honest question: You're saying that it would be worth the very solid probability that you'd lose your life in the process?
The French Revolution, referenced above by couchslug, saw ~225,000 killed in 9 months of the Reign o'Terror, above and beyond the ~20,000 "aristocrats" killed with or w/o trial to kick it off. Yeah, I know, it's SparkNotes, but it's the first reference I could find.
Sure. And if you wanted to bully all the Arab countries in the region while establishing dominance, you would also be working very hard to get them. Of course, everyone knows that the government of Iran is peaceful and rational, only seeking nuclear arms to protect itself from the U.S.
It would be interesting to correlate the value of a/.'rs user ID and his or her leanings on this subject. No way to correlate age, of course, but interesting nonetheless.
Youre simply remarking that "people with connections and money tend to be able to exploit the system". Thats NOT a problem of technology or its being withheld, and thats NOT a new issue.
What is technology, without the human / social context in which to exploit it?
...is it largely useless without the contacts and financial/legal resources to properly exploit it?
I'm unsure how to answer this question. In my previous example, these people were able to create the technology that they were then able to exclusively exploit- Are you saying that since this technology is not accessible to the masses because they don't have "the contacts and financial/legal resources to properly exploit it", this doesn't count as a problem of "technology or its being witheld"?
This is turning into a graduate thesis, but I can't think of a better place than here to work the subject over. I don't know if I can find examples of limited-use technology that provide wealth for a limited few, that are not constrained by being "...largely useless without the contacts and financial/legal resources to properly exploit it?"
I am not arguing whether or not Joe Schmoe can or cannot protect himself from "The Man". This is an entirely different argument, one in which you and I probably agree.
Talk to me instead about your opinions regarding groups of people acquiring, through technology to which you and I do not have access, wealth and power. Small groups of people are siphoning billions of dollars each week because they have technology- Technology that you and I don't have. It does not matter if there's a copy of Linux & truecrypt in every home and office in America- This does not change what the groups I've mentioned can and are doing.
By the way-
(so you say)
There was no way I could have worked on the contract in the first place w/o signing NDA's and Non-competes. This group has enough money to sue me out of existence, even if I hadn't signed my life away. If they felt that their source of wealth was threatened, don't doubt for a minute that they would not do whatever was necessary.
I know that you aren't quite sure what advantage I'm referring to. That is why I continue to use the term "naive".
You refer to technology such as "(linux, truecrypt, ipsec vpns, etc etc etc)", implying that this is the technology that levels the field??? The vast, and I mean the overwhelmingly vast majority of Americans don't know what these things are, let alone how to use them. Let alone how to use them effectively. So, the peons are more literate than ever before, and have access to vast "stores of knowledge" via the internet? Internet access wasn't the level of technology to which I was referring. The dominant, powerful people in this nation, people who control the majority of wealth and power, have exclusive access to technology that goes a bit beyond this.
Several examples come to mind, but one with which I have direct experience is easiest to talk about- Last year I ended a contract completing enhancements for a high-frequency trading package for a mid-sized trading house. The use of this technology, which incidentally makes use of your great equalizer, Linux, has been pulling in an incredible, I mean a whole shit load, of cash for the firm... and this is a mid-sized firm, and the software probably isn't as good as what I've heard the bigger guys use. I talk to the traders now and then- You simply would not believe how much money is being siphoned off for the benefit of a -very- small group of people. I made decent coin on this contract, but not what they make using the system. No regrets- My point is that this is just one type of very profitable manipulation made possible by -technology-, technology to which you and I do not have, and will never have, access. I know the principles and could write my own system, but would never make it out of the legal system before I was too old to use it. This type of technology alone effects an unprecedented transfer of wealth. There are many other examples, examples that are more directly malevolent that involve data gathering and surveillance on a large scale, among others.
Slashdot Mirror
Who is actually doing this now, in the absence of regulation? If it did happen, do you mean to the extent that would degrade the other traffic noticably -- to its average consumer -- or would it mainly only be detectable using metering tools in your hypothetical scenario?
I believe that you are obfuscating the issue, and I sincerely wonder why. The primary issue driving the net neutrality conflict is that of paid prioritization- This issue is one that will play out with results seen in a decade or so, more in the wireless market, IMO, as the market evolves. A cable-like, tiered access to content plan is preferred by the carriers, now that they've seen the money to be made. A quote from AT&T VP Robert Quinn gives an idea of how the major carriers would prefer the conflict to resolve, as he argued that banning paid prioritization would be a "colossal mistake that would harm countless businesses and their customers." Always in the consumers' corner, that AT&T. Once paid prioritization is in place for consumers, what then?
No need for ad-hominums
No need to presume victimization. I said nothing about your personal characteristics or beliefs unrelated to the subject. I said that "you don't have a clue (about this subject) other than the drivel (your argument) that you spouted". I do retract this statement, however, as the argument you did give above now sounds less like cluelessness than the astroturfing and argument redirection I've read in the past from persons close to the telecom industry. Not saying that you actually are, mind you, but it sounds like it.
Thanks for your insight. Now go take your meds, little guy.
The situation with broadband is not like air travel. Tell me how it compares when a broadband carrier, formerly nothing more than a neutral transporter of internet traffic, decides to become a content provider as well and prioritizes it's own traffic over that of another content provider? Tell us exactly how more unthrottled, source-neutral, and content-neutral bandwidth will arise from less regulation in this case. My guess is that you don't have a clue beyond the abstract drivel you've spouted.
He blackmailed the Puppeteers regarding their home world's lack of a moon- I assume part of the contract released him from the memory-wipe clause, as he was able to tell the story to Greg Pelton while playing Gin on the way back to Earth from Jinx. I believe he also had Ander Smittarasheed ghost-write the story for him.
.
...You know what's sorry about this? I've read and re-read Known Space / Kzinti stories so many times that this stuff is lodged in my head and emerges whenever someone makes the slightest reference to it.
I'm not an astrophysicist, but correlating a 4% drop in temperature over 10 years to the existence of a superfluid core seems like a stretch.
... when it comes to deciding who to give power to.
Democrat and Republican "leadership" represent different appendages of the same beast. The primary differences between the two lay in the different opportunities offered to members for acquiring wealth and power
I wonder if it will be a problem for the folks on the ISS.
For most, it probably wouldn't be. All you can really do is advocate the idea whenever possible.
Why would I advocate your approach if both you and I agree that it is ineffective for most?
Other than that, there's not much you can do, as far as I know.
As I said above, there is, in my experience.
Your statements make sense on a certain level. However teaching a logical concept that is meant to take the place of a powerful emotional state on the mind's stage typically requires more than a succinct and logically correct argument. Human beings are known for their irrational behavior and beliefs- Beliefs that often do not succumb easily to rational statements. Many times empathy and emotion-based concepts will produce better outcomes when dealing with a child's problems than could purely rational statements, however accurate.
While I agree with you in principle, in practice I have found the approach you mention above to be ineffective.
The vast majority of humans I've dealt with, children as well as adults, are emotional creatures prone to bouts of rational behavior, and must often be counseled at that "level" when dealing with painful beliefs that incorrectly model the world around them.
Which is who I'm speaking out against. I know this because it's obvious. But that's why I believe these people need to be taught that there is no need to act in such a manner.
This is a reasonable idea, and is important to the discussion- Could you therefore detail how these people could be taught?
... because they're the ones who can fix it.
You've made a statement that is important to your argument, yet sparse in detail. Could you elaborate upon how a child might accomplish this?
Déjà vu- Both of the shittiest bosses I've ever had talked just like that.
...passwords continue to be the Achilles' heel of the average Internet user.
This just in from the No Shit News Network: Water is wet, it gets dark at night.
I mock their work ethic, but damn, I'm quietly jealous.
The French Revolution, referenced above by couchslug, saw ~225,000 killed in 9 months of the Reign o'Terror, above and beyond the ~20,000 "aristocrats" killed with or w/o trial to kick it off. Yeah, I know, it's SparkNotes, but it's the first reference I could find.
Sure. And if you wanted to bully all the Arab countries in the region while establishing dominance, you would also be working very hard to get them. Of course, everyone knows that the government of Iran is peaceful and rational, only seeking nuclear arms to protect itself from the U.S.
Such an invasion would, of course, be an improvement for the lives of Iranians, in addition to a good thing for the rest of the world as well.
After all, the second Iraq war improved the lives of the Iraqis
That's the problem when making jokes in a forum full of analyticals.
If soldiers are being 'terrorised' by the threat of facing bombs, they probably aren't very good soldiers.
Sagely written from the safety of your home.
Go easy on the guy- Nathan doesn't have enough money or power... He NEEDs to troll patents to make the voices go away.
Anyone who isn't blocking them by now deserves what they get.
I was wondering when you'd show up.
It would be interesting to correlate the value of a /.'rs user ID and his or her leanings on this subject. No way to correlate age, of course, but interesting nonetheless.
Youre simply remarking that "people with connections and money tend to be able to exploit the system". Thats NOT a problem of technology or its being withheld, and thats NOT a new issue.
What is technology, without the human / social context in which to exploit it?
...is it largely useless without the contacts and financial/legal resources to properly exploit it?
I'm unsure how to answer this question. In my previous example, these people were able to create the technology that they were then able to exclusively exploit- Are you saying that since this technology is not accessible to the masses because they don't have "the contacts and financial/legal resources to properly exploit it", this doesn't count as a problem of "technology or its being witheld"?
This is turning into a graduate thesis, but I can't think of a better place than here to work the subject over. I don't know if I can find examples of limited-use technology that provide wealth for a limited few, that are not constrained by being "...largely useless without the contacts and financial/legal resources to properly exploit it?"
How do you separate the two in real life?
I am not arguing whether or not Joe Schmoe can or cannot protect himself from "The Man". This is an entirely different argument, one in which you and I probably agree.
Talk to me instead about your opinions regarding groups of people acquiring, through technology to which you and I do not have access, wealth and power. Small groups of people are siphoning billions of dollars each week because they have technology- Technology that you and I don't have. It does not matter if there's a copy of Linux & truecrypt in every home and office in America- This does not change what the groups I've mentioned can and are doing.
By the way-
(so you say)
There was no way I could have worked on the contract in the first place w/o signing NDA's and Non-competes. This group has enough money to sue me out of existence, even if I hadn't signed my life away. If they felt that their source of wealth was threatened, don't doubt for a minute that they would not do whatever was necessary.
You refer to technology such as "(linux, truecrypt, ipsec vpns, etc etc etc)", implying that this is the technology that levels the field??? The vast, and I mean the overwhelmingly vast majority of Americans don't know what these things are, let alone how to use them. Let alone how to use them effectively. So, the peons are more literate than ever before, and have access to vast "stores of knowledge" via the internet? Internet access wasn't the level of technology to which I was referring. The dominant, powerful people in this nation, people who control the majority of wealth and power, have exclusive access to technology that goes a bit beyond this.
Several examples come to mind, but one with which I have direct experience is easiest to talk about- Last year I ended a contract completing enhancements for a high-frequency trading package for a mid-sized trading house. The use of this technology, which incidentally makes use of your great equalizer, Linux, has been pulling in an incredible, I mean a whole shit load, of cash for the firm... and this is a mid-sized firm, and the software probably isn't as good as what I've heard the bigger guys use. I talk to the traders now and then- You simply would not believe how much money is being siphoned off for the benefit of a -very- small group of people. I made decent coin on this contract, but not what they make using the system. No regrets- My point is that this is just one type of very profitable manipulation made possible by -technology-, technology to which you and I do not have, and will never have, access. I know the principles and could write my own system, but would never make it out of the legal system before I was too old to use it. This type of technology alone effects an unprecedented transfer of wealth. There are many other examples, examples that are more directly malevolent that involve data gathering and surveillance on a large scale, among others.
You "rethink" it.