I posit that they like it for the same reason that a great many people like GWB. Yes, this is inflamatory - but only because both groups are clearly making a compromise that is easily mistaken for stupidity. That is, they buy into the cult mentality where opinions matter first and foremost for what others think of them. With such people, you find beliefs such as that GWB is the best, most swaggering & manly president ever, or that Vista is the best, biggest swinging dick of an operating system ever. Neither are particularly well founded conclusions, unless your goal happens to be earning the respect of groupies and rather than having the most competent operating system / president.
Intelligent people are especially prone to this sort of error. The simple fact, my friends, is that Windows, like GWB, just plain sucks ass, and we all know it.
Indeed, Mac users generally aren't afraid to admit that they want what they want and go with it. While Mark Foleys of the world use Windows, their hearts crave the forbidden fruit, and there's no denying it.
If you are using the internet, that is a networking 'service' Would you care to elaborate on that? It sounds as if Microsoft (mis)nomenclature has you all mixed up.
For those who say that plain text email works better than HTML email: it depends of your target. I will certainly advice plain text for a geek mailing list but for lambda users they prefer shiny lay-out (stats prooves it). Was this confirmed with double-blind testing?
For those who said that they can't read the email with Pine or with their telnet account. Nobody care [sic] about martians. OK, but what about the blind Pine users pining for blind math software info? Or have you conflated the two groups? Perhaps you have... alienated them!
At one time we had this. Then, it went away and Clinton's Penis became the #1 news item of all time ever. Now, the nation's most popular news channel is brashly biased and continuouslydeceives, quantifiably damaging the electorate's understanding of their government and the world around them.
Excuse me, but I'd rather see the last 9 years of TV media "improvement" reversed. You imply that the leading political party would have complete control over the application of the fairness doctrine - this is in fact not the case. If this new doctrine were enforced by the FCC, under a clear and concise rubric, it would allow little room for the quashing of certain points of view - seeing as how it stipulates that conflicting points of view must necessarily be presented.
As the telephone companies love to tell us, IPTV over the internet as we know it is impossible. Without QOS, this service will not work - at all. Why is Netflix lying like this? It makes me cry.
By users, for the most part, I mean large, identifiable organizations such as google.com, whom a certain backbone provider has already stated their intention to blackmail. Google doesn't pay the packet protection fee but Microsoft does? Well, well well well... AT&T is going to let google's packets sit on the back burner while Microsoft's slide on by. It's easy to identify such packets. Does the destination or source IP reverse to a google.com domain? If so, shitcan most of them and let a few go through very much out of order and massively delayed. You know, they have to. In order to preserve windows update's quality of service and also to ensure IPTV works good and stuff. Trust them, IPTV is impossible without common carrier exceptions.
As for the "tiered" idea: it will be in carrier's interest to make lower tiers progressively worse as they go down in price. I want carriers on my team. I don't want it to be in their interest to piss on me and tell me it's raining.
It doesn't matter what your provider does. You prioritize it yourself, either by stopping your downloads or by using a router that understands content and assigns priorities accordingly, or by writing firewall rules that depend on the ports of the protocols in question. Ingress filtering is not a new technology and it works well. Content providers could even put QOS bits in their packets to identify high priority streams that your router or desktop IP stack could take into account in order to save you the trouble. It's not necessary to put this extremely abuse-prone mechanism in the hands of the very people who have the most to gain by abusing it. It's seem to me that they are the ones ginning up this controversy - the actual businesses such as google presently doing service quality sensitive business don't want it.
Talk to me in November and then we can talk year's biggest tech launches. It's a date. As soon as I awake from that trick or treat sugar coma, I'll call your iPhone from my iPhone...
The "IPTV" services you talk about today aren't quite the same thing that you view on your TV. For one, the bitrates for these services are miniscule compared to that necessary for standard- or high-definition TV programming. Second, there's usually a multi-second lag between the time you request playback and the time playback starts. This lag time is used to buffer enough of the content that playback can appear seamless. Do you want your TV to behave this way? Well, I use a TIVO... But at any rate, I have had the pleasure of using video on demand on a private network that implements QOS (Charter's video on demand datastream). Unsurprisingly, there is a multi second delay when you request a new stream while the cable box buffers. On a large packetized network, some amount of buffering is unavoidable unless you are the only user, unless you have engineered the network to always relay packets in order, even if not all packets traverse the same routes. The internet will never do this. The question of data rate is irrelevant. There is no reason this technology can't scale, and in fact it has. Obviously, video chat requires far more bandwidth than voice, and already it can service both competently.
Purchasing better hardware at the customer end to prioritize traffic won't solve anything, because your congestion is on your Internet connection itself. By the time it's arrived at your DSL router (or whatever), it's already traversed your Internet connection and packets have already been dropped if the link was congested. You need your ISP's cooperation to do this, but even with your ISP allowing you to prioritize packets on the ISP's side, they can't guarantee how the public Internet is going to treat the same data. If that IPTV stream has to make its way through 3 or 4 major backbones, you can't control how those other providers prioritize your packets. Ingress traffic shaping is a tricky problem, but people much smarter than I have it licked. Here's how it works: you start queuing incoming streams that exceed their bandwidth limit. The sender notices and reduces his rate of transmission. You do this such that your total incoming data rate does not exceed your connection's bandwidth, thereby avoiding indiscriminate queuing of all incoming packets. If a sender does not reduce his transmission rate, he is doing something wrong, such as DOSing you. CISCO gear supports this, as does linux. Go read up before assuming that the internet must be broken in order to solve various problems that have already been smacked about good and hard.
Regulation is bad. NN is regulation, therefore NN is bad. Looks like a syllogism to me.
It is possible for a fatuous argument to simultaneously be a syllogism and for it to beg the question. To wit, according to dictionary.com, a syllogism is:
An argument the conclusion of which is supported by two premises, of which one (major premise) contains the term (major term) that is the predicate of the conclusion, and the other (minor premise) contains the term (minor term) that is the subject of the conclusion; common to both premises is a term (middle term) that is excluded from the conclusion. A typical form is "All A is C; all B is A; therefore all B is C." Indeed, you say (A regulation) is (C bad); (B net nuetraility) is (A regulation); therefore (B net nuetrality) is (C bad). So we have a syllogism.
According to wikipedia,
Begging the question occurs if and only if the conclusion is implicitly or explicitly a component of an immediate premise. Without the proposition that all regulation is bad, your argument fails to posit that net nuetrality is bad. Therefore, you beg the question.
Your conclusion presupposes that you can think for yourself, but apparently you like to be spoonfed.
I've heard this argument before, but it strikes me as being a canard. First off, we have IPTV services right now. Apple has sold 50 million videos and Youtube and Google Video are raging successes. Why is that these work, and why is that latency sensitive gaming works when the very fabric of the internet is apparently so fundimentally flawed? What of Skype audio and video chat? Why should Skype be able to do it, but not HBO?
Of course, your Skype call will hiccup if your downloads are starving it for bandwidth. This problem can be solved by purchasing a router that priororitizes traffic at your end - there are numerous commercial solutions that do just this. Furthermore, it's possible to do in Linux with tc and it's easy to do with pf on FreeBSD. You don't need to break equality of traffic on the backbone to solve this problem.
Selection? Selection of what? In what way does mandatory equality of QOS negatively impact the internet? I posit that the internet owes its success to carrier's whose motivation presently is to provide the best possible service. Breaking nuetrality means it will be the carrier's fudiciary duty to degrade all traffic and underinvest in their networks in order to force all users to pay unavoidable tolls. Users who refuse will see their traffic neglected and actively sabotaged.
"Net neutrality is bad idea -- just like most regulation of industry. How about revoking some of the pro-monopoly laws that exist, and allowing the market to go where the consumer wants it to? Voting with your dollars gives us cheaper goods in greater quantity. Setting regulations does the opposite."
You are working from an unsupported proposition - that all regulation is bad - and saying that since net nuetrality is regulation, it must also be bad. Your conclusion presupposes your conclusion. That's called begging the question.
"It's why all too many ordinary users shrug their hands and buy Word rather than hassle with import quirkiness."
I may be misreading your post, but this last bit suggests that users do care about formatting. Why else would the import quirkiness bother them? Consistent formatting, fonts and precise layout do matter, and using a static document format is clearly not the answer.
'AT&T said it would "maintain a neutral network and neutral routing in its wireline broadband Internet access service"'
Note that AT&T said that they would only provide for net neutrality on the local loop (and only for 40 months). Net nuetrality is always a good thing on the backbone. It's a very important thing there, in fact. Forget your Britney Spears albums for a moment, OK? We're talking about whether you will have to pay AT&T when you want to send a packet to Blizzard's servers on L3's network and whether emerge --sync will now take a fortnight if you don't happen to hit a mirror in Ma Bell's backyard.
It's arguably less important, but unless you want to see the AOL / Compuserve / Prodigy BBS fracturing of the internet, you should look past Britney's bust and see the bigger picture.
Market players desire to amalgamate does not imply that amlgamation benefits the consumer. High barriers to entry are also beside the point: the players in question have already entered the market.
I posit that AT&T finds it their fudiciary duty to monopolize because it is profitable - for them.
Also, it's darling how you refuse to take responsibility for your own arguments. Oh, how it warms the cockles of my heart.
Do you keep a list of offensive advertisers so that you know whose products not to buy? Or, more likely, do you walk around pissed off with a few despised companies on the tip of your tongue and numerous brand names floating about in long term memory?
Do you recite the names of the companies that you hate?
Chevy, Coke, Nike, Buik, that pizza place, what's their face, Calvin Klien, Taco Bell, BK (stupid king!)
O.M.G. this commercial with the fleeces and the lady in the glasses, oh I hate them... what's their name... OLD NAVY! THOSE BASTARDS!
Man, are you kind of hungry? Just a little rumble in your stomach - just a slight nawing hunger. I'm feeling it. Did you know that a Whopper is actually healthier than the average plate of spaghetti with marinara? I bet you read that in the New York Times.
OH how i hate their login system! Every single time, man, every single time you need a knew bugmenot login.
Alright, time for a Whopper but not a taco. Taco Bell and their disease-ridden grade D meat! NO WAY! Thanks, New York Times for that info. Hmm, there are probably after X-mas sales going on right now and this jacket is looking threadbare. Better stop off at Old Navy for a Performance Fleece. (hmm that just popped into my head. weird. oh well!) Fleece and Whopper. Yay! (happy face happy face:D;D:D)
Not developing life-saving drugs would then be deontic for publically held companies. Why should they directly violate their fudiciary duty when they could instead focus on profitable drugs? How would you quantify the usefulness of a stolen vital drug in terms of the suffering inflicted by extension of patents for the rest?
Here's an idea: the people could own drugs that they develop. If the government funds it, the government owns it. If the government identifies a method by which existing herbs & spices can be used to treat breasts, the people get to marinate in the profits. If a private company does - why then, it's all they can eat. MMMmmMMMmmm. Who lahks chickan wangs?? But seriously, chicken wings are pretty good and I like chick breasts in my mouth. Git in mah gaping maw!
But really, we could apply the policy to synthetic drugs. I know I'd like to treat some titties to something special. Bam!!!
I'm actually looking down in shame, but, oh me, A.T.T.I.C!
Slashdot Mirror
I posit that they like it for the same reason that a great many people like GWB. Yes, this is inflamatory - but only because both groups are clearly making a compromise that is easily mistaken for stupidity. That is, they buy into the cult mentality where opinions matter first and foremost for what others think of them. With such people, you find beliefs such as that GWB is the best, most swaggering & manly president ever, or that Vista is the best, biggest swinging dick of an operating system ever. Neither are particularly well founded conclusions, unless your goal happens to be earning the respect of groupies and rather than having the most competent operating system / president.
Intelligent people are especially prone to this sort of error. The simple fact, my friends, is that Windows, like GWB, just plain sucks ass, and we all know it.
Wait, is it because it's being shoved down their throats? ;-p
Indeed, Mac users generally aren't afraid to admit that they want what they want and go with it. While Mark Foleys of the world use Windows, their hearts crave the forbidden fruit, and there's no denying it.
What the hell? A Modest Proposal ?
At one time we had this. Then, it went away and Clinton's Penis became the #1 news item of all time ever. Now, the nation's most popular news channel is brashly biased and continuously deceives, quantifiably damaging the electorate's understanding of their government and the world around them.
Excuse me, but I'd rather see the last 9 years of TV media "improvement" reversed. You imply that the leading political party would have complete control over the application of the fairness doctrine - this is in fact not the case. If this new doctrine were enforced by the FCC, under a clear and concise rubric, it would allow little room for the quashing of certain points of view - seeing as how it stipulates that conflicting points of view must necessarily be presented.
As the telephone companies love to tell us, IPTV over the internet as we know it is impossible. Without QOS, this service will not work - at all. Why is Netflix lying like this? It makes me cry.
Indeed they do.
*wretch* *upchuck*
By users, for the most part, I mean large, identifiable organizations such as google.com, whom a certain backbone provider has already stated their intention to blackmail. Google doesn't pay the packet protection fee but Microsoft does? Well, well well well... AT&T is going to let google's packets sit on the back burner while Microsoft's slide on by. It's easy to identify such packets. Does the destination or source IP reverse to a google.com domain? If so, shitcan most of them and let a few go through very much out of order and massively delayed. You know, they have to. In order to preserve windows update's quality of service and also to ensure IPTV works good and stuff. Trust them, IPTV is impossible without common carrier exceptions.
As for the "tiered" idea: it will be in carrier's interest to make lower tiers progressively worse as they go down in price. I want carriers on my team. I don't want it to be in their interest to piss on me and tell me it's raining.
It doesn't matter what your provider does. You prioritize it yourself, either by stopping your downloads or by using a router that understands content and assigns priorities accordingly, or by writing firewall rules that depend on the ports of the protocols in question. Ingress filtering is not a new technology and it works well. Content providers could even put QOS bits in their packets to identify high priority streams that your router or desktop IP stack could take into account in order to save you the trouble. It's not necessary to put this extremely abuse-prone mechanism in the hands of the very people who have the most to gain by abusing it. It's seem to me that they are the ones ginning up this controversy - the actual businesses such as google presently doing service quality sensitive business don't want it.
You know what I hate? Airplane food. Man! It's awful!
And VCRs with the blinking 12:00! What's up with that?
Yeah, seriously! No Wi-Max support? Lame.
Looks like a syllogism to me.
It is possible for a fatuous argument to simultaneously be a syllogism and for it to beg the question. To wit, according to dictionary.com, a syllogism is: An argument the conclusion of which is supported by two premises, of which one (major premise) contains the term (major term) that is the predicate of the conclusion, and the other (minor premise) contains the term (minor term) that is the subject of the conclusion; common to both premises is a term (middle term) that is excluded from the conclusion. A typical form is "All A is C; all B is A; therefore all B is C." Indeed, you say (A regulation) is (C bad); (B net nuetraility) is (A regulation); therefore (B net nuetrality) is (C bad). So we have a syllogism.
According to wikipedia, Begging the question occurs if and only if the conclusion is implicitly or explicitly a component of an immediate premise. Without the proposition that all regulation is bad, your argument fails to posit that net nuetrality is bad. Therefore, you beg the question.
Your conclusion presupposes that you can think for yourself, but apparently you like to be spoonfed.
Ahem.
I've heard this argument before, but it strikes me as being a canard. First off, we have IPTV services right now. Apple has sold 50 million videos and Youtube and Google Video are raging successes. Why is that these work, and why is that latency sensitive gaming works when the very fabric of the internet is apparently so fundimentally flawed? What of Skype audio and video chat? Why should Skype be able to do it, but not HBO?
Of course, your Skype call will hiccup if your downloads are starving it for bandwidth. This problem can be solved by purchasing a router that priororitizes traffic at your end - there are numerous commercial solutions that do just this. Furthermore, it's possible to do in Linux with tc and it's easy to do with pf on FreeBSD. You don't need to break equality of traffic on the backbone to solve this problem.
Your premise presupposes your conclusion, that should be.
Selection? Selection of what? In what way does mandatory equality of QOS negatively impact the internet? I posit that the internet owes its success to carrier's whose motivation presently is to provide the best possible service. Breaking nuetrality means it will be the carrier's fudiciary duty to degrade all traffic and underinvest in their networks in order to force all users to pay unavoidable tolls. Users who refuse will see their traffic neglected and actively sabotaged.
"Net neutrality is bad idea -- just like most regulation of industry. How about revoking some of the pro-monopoly laws that exist, and allowing the market to go where the consumer wants it to? Voting with your dollars gives us cheaper goods in greater quantity. Setting regulations does the opposite."
You are working from an unsupported proposition - that all regulation is bad - and saying that since net nuetrality is regulation, it must also be bad. Your conclusion presupposes your conclusion. That's called begging the question.
"It's why all too many ordinary users shrug their hands and buy Word rather than hassle with import quirkiness."
I may be misreading your post, but this last bit suggests that users do care about formatting. Why else would the import quirkiness bother them? Consistent formatting, fonts and precise layout do matter, and using a static document format is clearly not the answer.
LaTeX is!
'AT&T said it would "maintain a neutral network and neutral routing in its wireline broadband Internet access service"'
Note that AT&T said that they would only provide for net neutrality on the local loop (and only for 40 months). Net nuetrality is always a good thing on the backbone. It's a very important thing there, in fact. Forget your Britney Spears albums for a moment, OK? We're talking about whether you will have to pay AT&T when you want to send a packet to Blizzard's servers on L3's network and whether emerge --sync will now take a fortnight if you don't happen to hit a mirror in Ma Bell's backyard.
It's arguably less important, but unless you want to see the AOL / Compuserve / Prodigy BBS fracturing of the internet, you should look past Britney's bust and see the bigger picture.
Shenanigans.
Market players desire to amalgamate does not imply that amlgamation benefits the consumer. High barriers to entry are also beside the point: the players in question have already entered the market.
I posit that AT&T finds it their fudiciary duty to monopolize because it is profitable - for them.
Also, it's darling how you refuse to take responsibility for your own arguments. Oh, how it warms the cockles of my heart.
Do you keep a list of offensive advertisers so that you know whose products not to buy? Or, more likely, do you walk around pissed off with a few despised companies on the tip of your tongue and numerous brand names floating about in long term memory?
:D ;D :D)
Do you recite the names of the companies that you hate?
Chevy, Coke, Nike, Buik, that pizza place, what's their face, Calvin Klien, Taco Bell, BK (stupid king!)
O.M.G. this commercial with the fleeces and the lady in the glasses, oh I hate them... what's their name... OLD NAVY! THOSE BASTARDS!
Man, are you kind of hungry? Just a little rumble in your stomach - just a slight nawing hunger. I'm feeling it. Did you know that a Whopper is actually healthier than the average plate of spaghetti with marinara? I bet you read that in the New York Times.
OH how i hate their login system! Every single time, man, every single time you need a knew bugmenot login.
Alright, time for a Whopper but not a taco. Taco Bell and their disease-ridden grade D meat! NO WAY! Thanks, New York Times for that info. Hmm, there are probably after X-mas sales going on right now and this jacket is looking threadbare. Better stop off at Old Navy for a Performance Fleece. (hmm that just popped into my head. weird. oh well!) Fleece and Whopper. Yay! (happy face happy face
Not developing life-saving drugs would then be deontic for publically held companies. Why should they directly violate their fudiciary duty when they could instead focus on profitable drugs? How would you quantify the usefulness of a stolen vital drug in terms of the suffering inflicted by extension of patents for the rest?
Here's an idea: the people could own drugs that they develop. If the government funds it, the government owns it. If the government identifies a method by which existing herbs & spices can be used to treat breasts, the people get to marinate in the profits. If a private company does - why then, it's all they can eat. MMMmmMMMmmm. Who lahks chickan wangs?? But seriously, chicken wings are pretty good and I like chick breasts in my mouth. Git in mah gaping maw!
But really, we could apply the policy to synthetic drugs. I know I'd like to treat some titties to something special. Bam!!!
I'm actually looking down in shame, but, oh me, A.T.T.I.C!
SHAZAM!!!!
Your sense of self irony is... the equivalent of an unfinished chipped stone against modern steel weaponry. Soooo irony!!!
Anyway, the article is about US techno-illiteracy and general idiocy. You are a prima facie example.