Median income for blacks is $32k. For all races it's $50k. Whites $55k. Privileged slanty-eyed Asians $65k, so don't tell me blacks are privileged in this country (though I will agree AA is bullshit).
I was raised to understand that 401(k) is the most important thing in the world, that debt is a thing you manage rather than eliminate, and that taking as much debt as you can and stretching it out for years and years is great as long as your payments are low. Everything I was taught was a lie, and I used a bunch of fourth grade math to figure out how it really works. Long division is hard.
I went to community college. I dropped out.
I'll never have any friends, never go on a date, and never have a girlfriend; but I've solved all my own problems and I'm set for life.
401(k) are not the only option. Stop saving money in a 401(k). You know this thing called a "Credit Union"? They have a "Share"? You put your money there. But first, you pay off these things called "Loans" and "Credit Cards". Honestly what the fuck do you think a 401(k) does? Hint: It doesn't get you money. Your money won't "grow" in a 401(k) any more than it'll "Grow" in scratch-offs.
Let's be direct: unless you're actually a studious stock market trader--I was once, I learned how to measure and identify the movements so I knew when to buy and sell, and it was the worst experience of my life--you're just throwing your money in a magic pot and hoping it'll come out bigger instead of smaller. I made 1% per day averaged over 3-5 days consistently, turned $800 into $3500, and... was totally tweaked out. Fuck that, gave that shit up because no fucking way. That's what your 401(k) is. Oh, you bought the S&P500 index in 2004 and you're going to "let it grow"? How'd losing 90% of your money work for you? Guess you didn't read the market trends right! You know, that market that makes 10% per year that you just have to "buy and hold", right?
Pensions were a huge gamble, but a more stable one. Everyone who had a GM pension lost theirs.
Apparently in some states (Virginia!), if you're pulled over and the cop finds more than $100 on your person, they can confiscate it as supposition of criminal activity. $100.
Airport for non-international flights will throw a fit if they find out you have large amounts of cash.
Any bank transfers over $10,000 are mandatory reporting, even in-country. A $9,998 cash deposit looks suspicious and is supposed to be reported ("just under the radar" means "suspicious"). Two $5,000 transfers will appear suspicious and must be reported. Wandering around with $10,000 on your person, getting pulled over, searched, and having $10,000 discovered on your person will result in your immediate arrest for questioning and/or your money being confiscated.
I don't care what the law says; if the actual law says you're allowed to grow your own weed, but the feds show up and arrest you and the judge sentences you for 8 years in federal prison, all your whining about what the law says is invalid. Shit is illegal. That doesn't mean it should be illegal--we should put a boot in someone's ass for this--but it's illegal.
I'm investing in my debt. Going to pay off my mortgage in 3 years. I make $65k/year. I'm paying off a full mortgage on a house in 3 years.
Going to invest in savings after that. You know, have $500/mo expenses, put $2000/mo in bank. Keep some, spend some. I'll spend enough to live a life of luxury (I do now, but I'm very good at maximizing the effectiveness of my spending), because youth is wasted on the young and I don't want to save up enough money being miserable my whole life to spend the end of my life being miserable struggling with health issues trying to not die. It's like people who hurry up and get married when they're 18 because girls are like... "I don't want to be an old maid stuck with kids!" You are going to have kids when you're like 19, then when you're 38 they'll get out of the house. You'll be almost in your 40s, you'll be married or divorced and struggling, your college years will be gone, your youth will be gone, you'll have missed all the time to party, and the best you can do is maybe spend that time being a cougar--which you could have done with a couple teenagers in the house anyway. Good job, idiot.
Economics dictates that retirement is essentially cheating. The system will continuously try to derive as much money from you as possible. Most people are too dumb for this and so are easy, so the smart ones of us can totally escape in impossible ways. If everyone was this smart, they would invariably decide that they need $X for their retirement goals and take that as a fixed expense, and so the entire system would still facilitate saving money. Instead, people are dumb and invest in index funds in 401(k) thinking it'll "grow", when that's not how it works; the funds managers take a percentage in any case, so they're happy with this.
Then we want everyone to pitch in to pay for old people, but then we want better health care to extend life from about 35-45 years (medieval lifespans) to 60, 80, 90 years, and then half the population is between 55 and 82 because the mean lifespan is 82 and nobody wants to put 50% of their paycheck into social security (twice as many old people as young people) and so the retirement age gets raised. Then people go, "Why I have to work until I 70?!?!?!?!" (if there's 1 person of retirement age for every (n) people working, you need to pay 1/(n+1) of your income into social security PLUS overhead; that means, for a stable mean lifespan (L) and retirement age (R), you need to pay (1/(R/(L-R))) of your paycheck into social security payout to keep it afloat. This would be absurd, except that people keep buying houses and now are going to have mortgages until they die and so aren't going to get to retire on 1/5 of their living income).
It's effectively a pyramid scheme that relies on an expanding population as well. It relies on more people joining to fund the smaller number of people at the top, but in this case *everyone* joins and so you need population expansion.
It's illegal to carry that much cash and the cash can be confiscated on presumption that you are committing a crime by having it. Why do you have that much cash? Who needs to carry that much cash? Have you paid taxes on it properly? I bet you haven't; guilty of tax evasion. It's probably drug money, since you have no real audit trail that can't be re-used for multiple sums of $40,000. Your audit trail is probably a single source from a money laundering scheme that you thought you could print out and show repeatedly for each instance of $40,000 you have. We're confiscating your money. We can't arrest you, but we can confiscate money from suspected criminal activities.
The OP said they don't have all the original source photos.
They gave us two weeks to "remove" the watermarks, as if they were stuck on with bubble gum.
As if they're stuck on with bubble gum huh... because it's so hard to remove a watermark. You put the watermark on
in our own photo lab
and now you have to "remove" it and that's so fucking hard. Like you can't just upload the non-watermarked source photo.
It still takes a lot of time to process 40,000 pictures and re-upload them,
"To process" you mean uh... to... do... all that stuff we already did, that's done. The raw image gets worked into a workable source image, which then gets watermarked and branded and whatnot. If you take your raw image, make a source image, watermark it, then throw out the source image or even dump the source and the raw image, you deserve to have to repeat work--one day the company will re-stylize their logo and you'll have to "process" all these images over again instead of looping a bash script that says "imagemagick --apply-this-logo-50x50-pixels-from-the-lower-right-at-45%-transparency $i" and getting coffee.
I'm sorry but I do stuff like this all the time. My time investment for hundreds of thousands of objects is often measured in seconds or minutes. Sometimes it's under 10 minutes for brand new processes to work on images, videos, etc.
I like how you say "to process" without really specifying what that means. Like some girl I went to high school with told me it was going to take her 11 hours to resize (simple scale by 50% or to a maximum size) a few hundred images for the magazine she worked with. In 8 minutes I had read the ImageMagick manual page, sent her instructions to install Cygwin, and a short bash script to iterate through an entire directory tree and create an identical tree of image files scaled to the specified parameters. She ran it and spent the rest of the day chatting on Facebook, then left early.
You talk like you have to re-process negatives into print photographs all over. You're just making up problems and writing a sob story, or you're too retarded to do your job in any competent manner. Also you're not "relinquishing copyright" and you didn't "copyright" any images, because copyright is automatic. You are giving a license to use images a certain way.
No you're totally wrong. I don't like cause-heads. I don't like people that go, "By the way, you are a complete and total utter fucking ass for saying something without considering a thousand attached meanings and taking so lightly an issue that I think you should be shocked--SHOCKED--to even think about, ever! The whole concept of something you referenced in three little words in passing is so utterly, totally disgusting that you should feel damaged and require therapy every time you realize it exists, and I need to go on a twenty-minute tirade to tell you how terrible a person you are!"
I wanted to see if I could psychologically injure him. It happens. You can actually stab people in the face over the Internet if you touch the right keys.
Net Neutrality says you can't provide varied level of access based on destination or "what's hot" or whatever. Netflix and Youtube eat bandwidth. Throttle the shit out of them, make them useless to your leased line users, and then get Google and Netflix to pay up for a partnership to unthrottle them or they lose customers and revenue. Nope, Net Neutrality says can't do that.
Your leased line subscription says you can get Public Internet services, but you can't *provide* Public Internet services. Not a Net Neutrality issue.
Net Neutrality: YouTube and NetFlix eat a ton of bandwidth. My ISP wants to throttle them severely and make the service providers pay money for a contract so they can have normal access. Without the contract, people on my ISP can't use their services and will instead use another service (like Hulu Plus) that's profit sharing with my ISP, thus getting my ISP more money. Net Neutrality says they can't do that, because I have Public Internet access and I can access services provided on the Public Internet.
Leased line TOS: My leased line provides me Public Internet access. As part of the terms of my lease, I'm not allowed to supply public services to the Public Internet via my leased line.
No, it can't. You're now re-defining net neutrality in the same way as re-defining Influenza as an STD because if you have sex with someone with the flu you will probably get the flu.
Except this isn't a Net Neutrality issue. It's a leased line TOS issue. Net Neutrality says you don't throttle service X different than service Y. YouTube and Netflix suck bandwidth? Too bad, you leased access to the Public Internet, that's what you provide. TOS can still say your tenant can't provide services to the Public Internet, though.
Except this is a leased line issue, not a network neutrality issue. Network Neutrality says they can't favor more or less what's going on across the public internet by throttling things down and impeding service to popular stuff until someone pays them protection money. Youtube sucks a lot of bandwidth? Too bad, you sold "Internet Access".
Your leased line says you can access the Public Internet to access public services. It also says you can't dangle public services off your leased line, which is a TOS issue rather than a neutrality issue.
Nope, you have a leased line. You're claiming that having a rented apartment should provide you the ability to have people in and out, nothing more, nothing less, and if you want to use your rented living space to house animals or run a daycare center or a retail business that's your business.
Network Neutrality is about the idea that the network operator doesn't get to draw that line. They have to treat traffic as traffic.
No, this is scope creep. Network Neutrality spawned from the fact that high-bandwidth services break the existing assumptions of the Internet--that browser traffic is largely small stuff, images and text and small low-latency game packets and the occasional large download--and gave people a way to consume tons and tons of bandwidth non-stop by watching TV using a unicast model instead of a broadcast model (which I said was stupid the moment I saw it--DRM breaks any sane way of replicating the broadcast concept of "signal boosting", too).
ISPs realized that this was going to be a clusterfuck and jack their costs insanely, and so reacted by trying to throttle high-bandwidth services. This naturally lead to the idea of permanently throttling popular stuff--Google, Youtube, Hulu, Netflix--unless the upstream provider paid for a contract. Given the Internet's normal model of being a public access with a connection fee, this is essentially economic rent seeking (rather than blanket bandwidth throttling and QoS and such, they started salivating over targeting high-value, deep-pocket service providers to get some of their cash).
The concept of Net Neutrality was thus born, in which people went, "Hey wait a minute, I paid for access to the Public Internet and I want to get just that! I don't want to get filtered, kill-anything-that's-popular Internet! You're going to render unusable all the stuff I'm most likely to actually want!" The upstream providers had the same stake, being that they were the ones who would be rendered useless and their revenue streams would dry up. Amusingly, this enforced inversions by which Netflix seeks economic rent by renting boxes to ISPs to cache Netflix (DRM issues--without DRM on the video content, sane ISP-level caching could handle much of this).
Coming back and saying, "Oh, wait, but I want to also be a service provider, not just access the Public Internet!" is scope creep. We're now talking about leasing terms for your leased line, not arbitrary interference with access beyond the end of your leased line.
Net Neutrality in principle prevents ISPs from being non-neutral to your access to public services on the public Internet. Someone is peered to Verizon, AT&T, Airband, whatever via a leased line with a TOS. You're also peered via a leased line with a TOS. Your TOS says you can't run servers, which is an agreement on the use of your leased line. Net Neutrality dictates that your TOS allows you to access "The Public Internet", and thus anything peered to the Public Internet is neutrally available--throttling Google or Netflix based on contracts or TOS or whatnot would be non-neutral access to public services.
Your pipe does two things: it gets you access to public services and it allows you to provide public services. Net Neutrality says your pipe must provide you with access to public services without any involuntary adulteration--your ISP can supply content controls or such for your use, but they can't arbitrarily throttle things they don't like. Net Neutrality does not say that your ISP must allow you to provide public services.
It's not a change in anything. Net Neutrality means that service provider X gets a leased line from line provider A, with a TOS. Consumer Y (you) gets a leased line from provider B, with a TOS. Provider B can't say, well, you can't access content from provider X unless A) you pay more; or B) they pay us and sign a contract with us. No, it's on the public Internet, and neutral access to the public Internet is required.
Google is saying, hey, we are your Provider B now. You lease a fiber line from us to access the public Internet. You can access all provided services equally as per Net Neutrality; however, the TOS you sign says you cannot become a provider of service over your leased line.
Sorry, you're leasing my link, you follow my rules. Just like if you lease an apartment and use it to host orgies you can be evicted. My apartment lease had a clause specifically stating that I could be evicted for "immoral or illegal activities on premises." Fucking my cousin would probably fall under "immoral" but marrying your cousin is legal in my state, so engaging in incest or plain fornication could get you evicted. The girl on the first floor was evicted for being too loud during sex with 4 different men a week....
Leased line. Your landlord says you can't run a business from it.
Because you're a fucking moron and too retarded to keep original source. "Oh, we've post-processed the image and marred it with a watermark logo. Let's delete it so if we rebrand in the future with a new logo we can't use these images and have to take all new ones!"
No, this is scope-creep and the headline is Fox-CNN style sensationalist bullshit.
Net Neutrality says that backbone service providers need to supply the same access to all legal services. Same access to porn, same access to Google, same access to Netflix. They're not allowed to slow down traffic bound for Netflix and Google until they get protection payments.
Google is arguing that this doesn't imply that a service provider can't impose terms of service on their clients. Google doesn't sign up with Comcast or Verizon to deliver Google to your home Internet connection; they're connected through a service provider of their choice (possibly Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, Qwest, Level-3, etc.) to the public Internet. They follow the TOS they agreed to when they bought their connection. You connect to the Public Internet in the same way and follow a similar TOS. Net Neutrality says in either case that these TOS must allow access to any other resource out there on the Public Internet; however, the TOS Google signs may allow them to run mega-services like Google, whereas the TOS you sign may ban you from running a public service.
It's the difference between "Man, my ISP won't let me run my own Web server!" and "Man, I paid $7.99/mo for Netflix but it sucked because my ISP partnered with Hulu and is throttling Netflix so much only ultra-low quality single-stream works, and there's nothing on Hulu and it costs $14.99/mo now for some reason. I tried using YouTube, but it was throttled and my ISP wanted me to pay $3.99/mo on top of that to get YouTube unthrottled. Google is slow as balls because they haven't signed a contract with my provider to pay them for bandwidth used to carry Google traffic."
Incidentally, it's pretty unpleasant to joke about sexual coercion. Before shooting off your keyboard at me for having the temerity to point this out, you might reflect on whether you would like the women or girls who are significant in your life to be subject to this -- an environment in which one stranger pushes them to act as sex objects for him for money, while another stranger laughs at them on the internet.
Adam stared, wide-eyed, mouth hanging open just a little. Mr. Sandrusky's penis was huge, not to mention just inches from his face. He was nervous, only ten years old; but he thought about his parents, what they'd say when they saw his report card.... His mouth opened wider, edging forward, temerity on his breath...
Slashdot Mirror
Median income for blacks is $32k. For all races it's $50k. Whites $55k. Privileged slanty-eyed Asians $65k, so don't tell me blacks are privileged in this country (though I will agree AA is bullshit).
I was raised to understand that 401(k) is the most important thing in the world, that debt is a thing you manage rather than eliminate, and that taking as much debt as you can and stretching it out for years and years is great as long as your payments are low. Everything I was taught was a lie, and I used a bunch of fourth grade math to figure out how it really works. Long division is hard.
I went to community college. I dropped out.
I'll never have any friends, never go on a date, and never have a girlfriend; but I've solved all my own problems and I'm set for life.
401(k) are not the only option. Stop saving money in a 401(k). You know this thing called a "Credit Union"? They have a "Share"? You put your money there. But first, you pay off these things called "Loans" and "Credit Cards". Honestly what the fuck do you think a 401(k) does? Hint: It doesn't get you money. Your money won't "grow" in a 401(k) any more than it'll "Grow" in scratch-offs.
Let's be direct: unless you're actually a studious stock market trader--I was once, I learned how to measure and identify the movements so I knew when to buy and sell, and it was the worst experience of my life--you're just throwing your money in a magic pot and hoping it'll come out bigger instead of smaller. I made 1% per day averaged over 3-5 days consistently, turned $800 into $3500, and ... was totally tweaked out. Fuck that, gave that shit up because no fucking way. That's what your 401(k) is. Oh, you bought the S&P500 index in 2004 and you're going to "let it grow"? How'd losing 90% of your money work for you? Guess you didn't read the market trends right! You know, that market that makes 10% per year that you just have to "buy and hold", right?
Pensions were a huge gamble, but a more stable one. Everyone who had a GM pension lost theirs.
Apparently in some states (Virginia!), if you're pulled over and the cop finds more than $100 on your person, they can confiscate it as supposition of criminal activity. $100.
Airport for non-international flights will throw a fit if they find out you have large amounts of cash.
Any bank transfers over $10,000 are mandatory reporting, even in-country. A $9,998 cash deposit looks suspicious and is supposed to be reported ("just under the radar" means "suspicious"). Two $5,000 transfers will appear suspicious and must be reported. Wandering around with $10,000 on your person, getting pulled over, searched, and having $10,000 discovered on your person will result in your immediate arrest for questioning and/or your money being confiscated.
I don't care what the law says; if the actual law says you're allowed to grow your own weed, but the feds show up and arrest you and the judge sentences you for 8 years in federal prison, all your whining about what the law says is invalid. Shit is illegal. That doesn't mean it should be illegal--we should put a boot in someone's ass for this--but it's illegal.
I don't retirement fund.
I'm investing in my debt. Going to pay off my mortgage in 3 years. I make $65k/year. I'm paying off a full mortgage on a house in 3 years.
Going to invest in savings after that. You know, have $500/mo expenses, put $2000/mo in bank. Keep some, spend some. I'll spend enough to live a life of luxury (I do now, but I'm very good at maximizing the effectiveness of my spending), because youth is wasted on the young and I don't want to save up enough money being miserable my whole life to spend the end of my life being miserable struggling with health issues trying to not die. It's like people who hurry up and get married when they're 18 because girls are like... "I don't want to be an old maid stuck with kids!" You are going to have kids when you're like 19, then when you're 38 they'll get out of the house. You'll be almost in your 40s, you'll be married or divorced and struggling, your college years will be gone, your youth will be gone, you'll have missed all the time to party, and the best you can do is maybe spend that time being a cougar--which you could have done with a couple teenagers in the house anyway. Good job, idiot.
Economics dictates that retirement is essentially cheating. The system will continuously try to derive as much money from you as possible. Most people are too dumb for this and so are easy, so the smart ones of us can totally escape in impossible ways. If everyone was this smart, they would invariably decide that they need $X for their retirement goals and take that as a fixed expense, and so the entire system would still facilitate saving money. Instead, people are dumb and invest in index funds in 401(k) thinking it'll "grow", when that's not how it works; the funds managers take a percentage in any case, so they're happy with this.
Then we want everyone to pitch in to pay for old people, but then we want better health care to extend life from about 35-45 years (medieval lifespans) to 60, 80, 90 years, and then half the population is between 55 and 82 because the mean lifespan is 82 and nobody wants to put 50% of their paycheck into social security (twice as many old people as young people) and so the retirement age gets raised. Then people go, "Why I have to work until I 70?!?!?!?!" (if there's 1 person of retirement age for every (n) people working, you need to pay 1/(n+1) of your income into social security PLUS overhead; that means, for a stable mean lifespan (L) and retirement age (R), you need to pay (1/(R/(L-R))) of your paycheck into social security payout to keep it afloat. This would be absurd, except that people keep buying houses and now are going to have mortgages until they die and so aren't going to get to retire on 1/5 of their living income).
It's effectively a pyramid scheme that relies on an expanding population as well. It relies on more people joining to fund the smaller number of people at the top, but in this case *everyone* joins and so you need population expansion.
What the hell is a sex tourist? Is there a country called sex?
It's illegal to carry that much cash and the cash can be confiscated on presumption that you are committing a crime by having it. Why do you have that much cash? Who needs to carry that much cash? Have you paid taxes on it properly? I bet you haven't; guilty of tax evasion. It's probably drug money, since you have no real audit trail that can't be re-used for multiple sums of $40,000. Your audit trail is probably a single source from a money laundering scheme that you thought you could print out and show repeatedly for each instance of $40,000 you have. We're confiscating your money. We can't arrest you, but we can confiscate money from suspected criminal activities.
The OP said they don't have all the original source photos.
They gave us two weeks to "remove" the watermarks, as if they were stuck on with bubble gum.
As if they're stuck on with bubble gum huh... because it's so hard to remove a watermark. You put the watermark on
in our own photo lab
and now you have to "remove" it and that's so fucking hard. Like you can't just upload the non-watermarked source photo.
It still takes a lot of time to process 40,000 pictures and re-upload them,
"To process" you mean uh... to ... do... all that stuff we already did, that's done. The raw image gets worked into a workable source image, which then gets watermarked and branded and whatnot. If you take your raw image, make a source image, watermark it, then throw out the source image or even dump the source and the raw image, you deserve to have to repeat work--one day the company will re-stylize their logo and you'll have to "process" all these images over again instead of looping a bash script that says "imagemagick --apply-this-logo-50x50-pixels-from-the-lower-right-at-45%-transparency $i" and getting coffee.
I'm sorry but I do stuff like this all the time. My time investment for hundreds of thousands of objects is often measured in seconds or minutes. Sometimes it's under 10 minutes for brand new processes to work on images, videos, etc.
I like how you say "to process" without really specifying what that means. Like some girl I went to high school with told me it was going to take her 11 hours to resize (simple scale by 50% or to a maximum size) a few hundred images for the magazine she worked with. In 8 minutes I had read the ImageMagick manual page, sent her instructions to install Cygwin, and a short bash script to iterate through an entire directory tree and create an identical tree of image files scaled to the specified parameters. She ran it and spent the rest of the day chatting on Facebook, then left early.
You talk like you have to re-process negatives into print photographs all over. You're just making up problems and writing a sob story, or you're too retarded to do your job in any competent manner. Also you're not "relinquishing copyright" and you didn't "copyright" any images, because copyright is automatic. You are giving a license to use images a certain way.
My landlord said I couldn't build a shed on his land either.
No you're totally wrong. I don't like cause-heads. I don't like people that go, "By the way, you are a complete and total utter fucking ass for saying something without considering a thousand attached meanings and taking so lightly an issue that I think you should be shocked--SHOCKED--to even think about, ever! The whole concept of something you referenced in three little words in passing is so utterly, totally disgusting that you should feel damaged and require therapy every time you realize it exists, and I need to go on a twenty-minute tirade to tell you how terrible a person you are!"
I wanted to see if I could psychologically injure him. It happens. You can actually stab people in the face over the Internet if you touch the right keys.
Net Neutrality says you can't provide varied level of access based on destination or "what's hot" or whatever. Netflix and Youtube eat bandwidth. Throttle the shit out of them, make them useless to your leased line users, and then get Google and Netflix to pay up for a partnership to unthrottle them or they lose customers and revenue. Nope, Net Neutrality says can't do that.
Your leased line subscription says you can get Public Internet services, but you can't *provide* Public Internet services. Not a Net Neutrality issue.
Net Neutrality: YouTube and NetFlix eat a ton of bandwidth. My ISP wants to throttle them severely and make the service providers pay money for a contract so they can have normal access. Without the contract, people on my ISP can't use their services and will instead use another service (like Hulu Plus) that's profit sharing with my ISP, thus getting my ISP more money. Net Neutrality says they can't do that, because I have Public Internet access and I can access services provided on the Public Internet.
Leased line TOS: My leased line provides me Public Internet access. As part of the terms of my lease, I'm not allowed to supply public services to the Public Internet via my leased line.
You're wrong. This isn't a Net Neutrality issue.
No, it can't. You're now re-defining net neutrality in the same way as re-defining Influenza as an STD because if you have sex with someone with the flu you will probably get the flu.
All-you-can-eat buffet not all-day-buffet. You no stay 4 hour; you eat you go home.
Except this isn't a Net Neutrality issue. It's a leased line TOS issue. Net Neutrality says you don't throttle service X different than service Y. YouTube and Netflix suck bandwidth? Too bad, you leased access to the Public Internet, that's what you provide. TOS can still say your tenant can't provide services to the Public Internet, though.
Except this is a leased line issue, not a network neutrality issue. Network Neutrality says they can't favor more or less what's going on across the public internet by throttling things down and impeding service to popular stuff until someone pays them protection money. Youtube sucks a lot of bandwidth? Too bad, you sold "Internet Access".
Your leased line says you can access the Public Internet to access public services. It also says you can't dangle public services off your leased line, which is a TOS issue rather than a neutrality issue.
How is this different?
Nothing you said actually makes a logical, coherent point, thus there is no way to argue against you since your non-argument is ridiculous.
Nope, you have a leased line. You're claiming that having a rented apartment should provide you the ability to have people in and out, nothing more, nothing less, and if you want to use your rented living space to house animals or run a daycare center or a retail business that's your business.
Network Neutrality is about the idea that the network operator doesn't get to draw that line. They have to treat traffic as traffic.
No, this is scope creep. Network Neutrality spawned from the fact that high-bandwidth services break the existing assumptions of the Internet--that browser traffic is largely small stuff, images and text and small low-latency game packets and the occasional large download--and gave people a way to consume tons and tons of bandwidth non-stop by watching TV using a unicast model instead of a broadcast model (which I said was stupid the moment I saw it--DRM breaks any sane way of replicating the broadcast concept of "signal boosting", too).
ISPs realized that this was going to be a clusterfuck and jack their costs insanely, and so reacted by trying to throttle high-bandwidth services. This naturally lead to the idea of permanently throttling popular stuff--Google, Youtube, Hulu, Netflix--unless the upstream provider paid for a contract. Given the Internet's normal model of being a public access with a connection fee, this is essentially economic rent seeking (rather than blanket bandwidth throttling and QoS and such, they started salivating over targeting high-value, deep-pocket service providers to get some of their cash).
The concept of Net Neutrality was thus born, in which people went, "Hey wait a minute, I paid for access to the Public Internet and I want to get just that! I don't want to get filtered, kill-anything-that's-popular Internet! You're going to render unusable all the stuff I'm most likely to actually want!" The upstream providers had the same stake, being that they were the ones who would be rendered useless and their revenue streams would dry up. Amusingly, this enforced inversions by which Netflix seeks economic rent by renting boxes to ISPs to cache Netflix (DRM issues--without DRM on the video content, sane ISP-level caching could handle much of this).
Coming back and saying, "Oh, wait, but I want to also be a service provider, not just access the Public Internet!" is scope creep. We're now talking about leasing terms for your leased line, not arbitrary interference with access beyond the end of your leased line.
Well, you're wrong.
Net Neutrality in principle prevents ISPs from being non-neutral to your access to public services on the public Internet. Someone is peered to Verizon, AT&T, Airband, whatever via a leased line with a TOS. You're also peered via a leased line with a TOS. Your TOS says you can't run servers, which is an agreement on the use of your leased line. Net Neutrality dictates that your TOS allows you to access "The Public Internet", and thus anything peered to the Public Internet is neutrally available--throttling Google or Netflix based on contracts or TOS or whatnot would be non-neutral access to public services.
Your pipe does two things: it gets you access to public services and it allows you to provide public services. Net Neutrality says your pipe must provide you with access to public services without any involuntary adulteration--your ISP can supply content controls or such for your use, but they can't arbitrarily throttle things they don't like. Net Neutrality does not say that your ISP must allow you to provide public services.
It's not a change in anything. Net Neutrality means that service provider X gets a leased line from line provider A, with a TOS. Consumer Y (you) gets a leased line from provider B, with a TOS. Provider B can't say, well, you can't access content from provider X unless A) you pay more; or B) they pay us and sign a contract with us. No, it's on the public Internet, and neutral access to the public Internet is required.
Google is saying, hey, we are your Provider B now. You lease a fiber line from us to access the public Internet. You can access all provided services equally as per Net Neutrality; however, the TOS you sign says you cannot become a provider of service over your leased line.
Sorry, you're leasing my link, you follow my rules. Just like if you lease an apartment and use it to host orgies you can be evicted. My apartment lease had a clause specifically stating that I could be evicted for "immoral or illegal activities on premises." Fucking my cousin would probably fall under "immoral" but marrying your cousin is legal in my state, so engaging in incest or plain fornication could get you evicted. The girl on the first floor was evicted for being too loud during sex with 4 different men a week....
Leased line. Your landlord says you can't run a business from it.
Because you're a fucking moron and too retarded to keep original source. "Oh, we've post-processed the image and marred it with a watermark logo. Let's delete it so if we rebrand in the future with a new logo we can't use these images and have to take all new ones!"
No, this is scope-creep and the headline is Fox-CNN style sensationalist bullshit.
Net Neutrality says that backbone service providers need to supply the same access to all legal services. Same access to porn, same access to Google, same access to Netflix. They're not allowed to slow down traffic bound for Netflix and Google until they get protection payments.
Google is arguing that this doesn't imply that a service provider can't impose terms of service on their clients. Google doesn't sign up with Comcast or Verizon to deliver Google to your home Internet connection; they're connected through a service provider of their choice (possibly Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, Qwest, Level-3, etc.) to the public Internet. They follow the TOS they agreed to when they bought their connection. You connect to the Public Internet in the same way and follow a similar TOS. Net Neutrality says in either case that these TOS must allow access to any other resource out there on the Public Internet; however, the TOS Google signs may allow them to run mega-services like Google, whereas the TOS you sign may ban you from running a public service.
It's the difference between "Man, my ISP won't let me run my own Web server!" and "Man, I paid $7.99/mo for Netflix but it sucked because my ISP partnered with Hulu and is throttling Netflix so much only ultra-low quality single-stream works, and there's nothing on Hulu and it costs $14.99/mo now for some reason. I tried using YouTube, but it was throttled and my ISP wanted me to pay $3.99/mo on top of that to get YouTube unthrottled. Google is slow as balls because they haven't signed a contract with my provider to pay them for bandwidth used to carry Google traffic."
Incidentally, it's pretty unpleasant to joke about sexual coercion. Before shooting off your keyboard at me for having the temerity to point this out, you might reflect on whether you would like the women or girls who are significant in your life to be subject to this -- an environment in which one stranger pushes them to act as sex objects for him for money, while another stranger laughs at them on the internet.
Adam stared, wide-eyed, mouth hanging open just a little. Mr. Sandrusky's penis was huge, not to mention just inches from his face. He was nervous, only ten years old; but he thought about his parents, what they'd say when they saw his report card.... His mouth opened wider, edging forward, temerity on his breath...
Are we cool yet?