Thats nice in a perfect world, but most of us are stuck behind monopolies with no real choice.
There may not be choice but there could be enough people to press government to pass net neutrality laws. What I'd like to see in the US is a large campaign to force the telecoms and cablecos to pay back the hundreds of billions of US taxpayer dollars they were given in subsidies.
What if Google stopped responding to requests from Virgin customers? I think Virgin would cave in pretty quickly.
As other/.ers suggested what Google, or anyone else, could do is have a special page that's displayed when a searcher's ISP throttles their connection, "Sorry but your searches will be slow because Virgin slows down your connection."
That'd strike me as a rather weird turn of phrase, since the "bus lane" is a desirable place to be. Indeed, you can get fined if you're in it during rush hour, as it's the lane with the least traffic so that the buses can get people into town quicker.
That depends. An express bus can go faster than a local bus that has to stop every couple of blocks.
Yeah 'cause stock owners care more about obeying the law and being ethical than they do about screwing every last penny out of everyone else, their customer, competitors, own business employees, small children at sweet shops...
I paid to invent and build that Internet that Virgin Media is now holding hostage for charging ransom against the billing model that made it worth holding for ransom. That's not a "free market", except in the corporate handouts you "Libertarians" love to pretend is "free" because you'd love to be the next ripoff artist yourself.
That is no free market to a libertarian. Libertarians encourage competition which lowers prices and increases quality, or in this case, speed.
Let's face it, there's a lot to be said for net priorities over net neutrality that makes it a lot more consumer friendly. A modest move towards charging content providers for customer access would have the effect of getting rid of a lot of marginal or crappy content that clogs even google these days.
Yea, let's face it. I pay for my connection and Google pays for it's connection. If my ISP throttles Google they are throttling my connection too and I signed no agreement or contract saying they can do that. Providers already have reciprocal agreements to pass on data that goes over their lines.
]I mean, I honestly, at this point, would be very happy if my ISP filtered out link farm sites, or, better still, if they just went out of business because the ad revenue was no longer sufficient to make them profitable.
Is it also ok to block competitors or alternative voices?
it also stands to reason that having a non-neutral internet makes possible offerings that might be more attractive to people than a merely neutral internet.
It also stands to reason they are limiting choice. If they don't like what you say they block you.
a lot of people do actually eat Big Macs, because they like them, and a lot of people are going to like a net that isn't neutral.
Was a time when the idea of a single provider of anything in a given area was considered an opportunity.
It is as long as you can get government permission and can afford to string up or lay the infrastructure needed. Even today most places don't have a choice as to who provides landline phone service. In most place there's only provider. It's the same with cable. I'm hoping wireless technologies will open up choice in broadband.
This is my last response as you're doing exactly what you accuse me of doing.
First you assumed that I am against the 2nd amendment as a personal right, and then launched a tirade against me replete with quotation.
I did no such thing. Not once in my part about the 2nd Amendment did I say you were against it as a personal right. I dare you to point out where I did.
Then you later accused me suggesting that by mentioning requirements for election, I was attempting to justify an oligarchy, aristocracy, an elite class, and the mere suggestion that I would only want a particular class of people reeks of an insinuation of racism or sexism or something-ism that I can only say is deplorable.
Perhaps your reading comprehension is below par, but I made no such statement. Instead I asked if that's what you meant as I have no idea what other requirements you would require.
Anymore correspondence on my part would be a waste of my tyme.
Yeah... Why don't you invest your money in CDOs, Securitized Products with different Traches for safety. Probably the Tranche 5(with most risk) would earn you so much money.
Right, invest in these bundled credit instruments. They're part of the reason for the economic slowdown if not recession we're in. But I suppose you know that. I'd stay away from them and stay with stocks and bonds. If I were able to invest, I'm on disability and don't work, I'd invest say 25% of my investments in aggressive growth stocks. Another 50% in growth stocks, 15% in income stocks, and 10% in value stocks. That is after I had 6 months living expenses in money market funds, CDs, and in savings. I'm hoping, rsn, to start working as a photographer and when I do I'll start my investments in growth stocks. Oh, like my brother-in-law did, I'd also like to do some trading once I built up enough of a fund to do so.
well the days where there are so much CO and particulates from the cars are well, almost, over nowadays at least for my city
And how about Shanghai or Beijing? What of the new cities in the desert in the west? There's talk the athletes may need to wear masks during the Olympics.
I live in Hong Kong
How do you like it? I wanted to go not to just Hong Kong but China. Years ago I was taking a class in Mandarin, well spoken. For writing we used both the Chinese ideograms and Pin Yin romanization.
We can't even agree on most of the amendments, certain sentences are twisted and abused, the entire constitution of the US is wrapped up in a semantic nightmare wherein we try to interpret what we -want- to interpret out of a two hundred year old document.
The only reason the amendments, and Constitution, have been twisted around is so that those who do the twisting get to say what it means. Take for instance the 2nd, because it mentions militias anti-guns activists say the right to bare arms is not a person right only a collective right. However if you read the writing of the Founding Fathers that it is in fact a personal right, the Founding Fathers feared government and wanted people to have the means of overthrowing the government. Thomas Jefferson said it quite succulently when he wrote:
"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
It wasn't long ago that people didn't directly vote in their Representatives and Senators.
The citizens voted for the Representatives it was the Senators the state legislators chose, see:
Section 2 - The House
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States
And:
Section 3 - The Senate
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, (chosen by the Legislature thereof,) (The preceding words in parentheses superseded by 17th Amendment, section 1.) for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.
That's a pretty big change don't you think?
And changed via the 17th Amendment.
The fact that the constitution sets out so little on the requirements for election?
The only requirement I see that could be added was a test on the Constitution, which I fear most politicians would lose. Are you suggesting only a certain class of people should be representatives and senators, an aristocracy? The Constitution specifically bans an aristocracy.
FDR was the guy who introduced Social Security, which is going to pay you to live after you retire because none of the banks or corporate pension schemes are willing to pay you.
That same money deduced to pay Social Security would earn you more if you invested it in stocks. Whereas SS only increases with a cost of living adjustment, which is tied to inflation, the stock market averages much more over an extended period of tyme, even over 20 years. Starting at the age of 18 a person can invest $2000 a year for 7 years, until they're 25 then not invest any more money and with an ROI, Return on Investment, of 10% a year when they reach the age of 65 they will have more than $800,000 invested. Think Social Security can beat that? At 65 even if you put $800,000 into US Treasury securities earning 4% that's still $32,000 a year, tax deductible. Social Security has outlived it's usefulness.
This is an eventuality, and a needed leveling of the playing field. Why should a multi-billion dollar company get a competitive advantage over local businesses?
Hey, those local businesses can sell online too. I knew 2 people who had their own book stores, both in converted houses. Both put a store online thus expanding their market reach a lot. One of them sold her brick and mortar store after a couple of years as she was making more from her online store than she did at her physical location.
this is quite an untrue statement considering the amount of particulates & carcinogens after combustion of fuel oil compared with cigrette
Because of those particulates and carcinogens, as well as greenhouse gases, exhaust fumes are much worse than cigarette smoke. You can be in a smoked filled room and not suffer anything more than heavy breathing but try being in an exhaust filled room and you'll pass out soon. Heck that's one way people commit suicide, start their car in the garage with all garage doors and windows closed then they soon pass out after which they'll die of carbon monoxide poisoning. I smoke and used to ride my bike 200+ miles a week, and I never had the breathing problems from smoking I'd get from riding my bike in heavy traffic. Heck I used to smoke while running without suffering shorten of breath but there were tymes riding my bike when I had to get off the road because I'd be too short of breath.
No, seriously. The EU is the ironically more successful implementation of the ideals laid out by our founders. It's missing as firm a constitutional backing, which I imagine will be rectified eventually
Are you serious? Have you seen how many pages the proposed EU Constitution had that the French vetoed? 485 pages. The USA Constitution only needs 1, 2 pages at most. The amendments fit on another 2 pages. And unlike the Constitution of the USA, which lays out only what the federal government can do, the EU Constitution detailed what the government must do or guaranty.
if the catalog company is in Maine and you are in Florida, then you don't pay Jack Schitt for taxes
Oh but if you live in Florida, I used to, you may be legally required to pay a use tax. Florida has no income tax so there's a special form that's supposed to be filled out. Other states have a line on their income tax forms where people are supposed to list what they bought from out of state.
The only reason that the USA wound up with a strong federal government was because the previous "federal" government, the Articles of Confederation,
Actually the reason the federal government got so strong was because of the Civil War. Prior to it states had more power and the federal government had less. Ultimately that's what the civil war was about, it wasn't about slavery.
I really don't understand this idea in the US of every state doing everything individually in their own little way.
So then you also believe there should only be one research lab? Because that's what the states are, research labs. Each state get to do research and try out different things. Then what works in one state another one can try too and what doesn't work the other state doesn't need to try. Having 50 labs will find solutions faster than having only 1 lab.
i think the anti-smoking people would be quite content if the laws are to make people smoke only in their premises, and only when no other people are present. this will stop MOST incident of smoking...
Only an outright ban on smoking will satisfy some anti-smoking advocates, some want to ban smoking even in private residences. All these bans do is turn otherwise law abiding people into criminals. And the US already has the highest prison population, per capita at least. Yet how many of these people also oppose vehicles? Not many I bet, yet the exhaust from vehicles is much worse than cigarette smoke.
a prospering corporation means better service (for you and me) and prospering share-holders (you and me);
A prospering corporation may mean better service but it doesn't have to mean that. And I doubt many people are stockholders.
So some New Yorkers get to save money while other New Yorkers (especially the Mom and Pops) lose out on MORE money. That does indirectly affect New Yorkers too, since less money being made by businesses translates into less jobs, lower salaries, less benefits, etc.
The New York shops have their home state to blame
I agree here. There's another thing I doubt many have thought of, I certainly hadn't until I read something about it. Many people believe money spent at a locally owned business will stay there, and this is one reason I'd preferred to support them myself, however it's not necessarily true. I used to love going to this one Middle Eastern deli where I used to live. It was owned by a Syrian or Syrian-American. Some might think he spent or invested his money locally, but he may of actually sent a lot of money to relatives in Syria as remittances. These remittances sent back home, wherever home is, is actually more money than all of the foreign assistance or aid given.
The Constitution is also not the "Alpha and Omega" of morality and ethics. The inequalities it had for non-whites and female citizens were corrected eventually
The original "Declaration Of Independence" though did have equality in it. When Thomas Jefferson wrote the DOI he wrote that Blacks and women had the same rights and slavery should be abolished. However others had to approve it so those parts were removed from the final version.
I can hear it now, somebody's saying TJ was a slave owner and therefore couldn't believe in abolishing slavery. Well every slave he owned he inherited from his father or his father-in-law. He didn't buy any slaves himself but he did free some, and wanted to free all of them but he was frequently in financial trouble and thought he couldn't afford to.
Slashdot Mirror
Thats nice in a perfect world, but most of us are stuck behind monopolies with no real choice.
There may not be choice but there could be enough people to press government to pass net neutrality laws. What I'd like to see in the US is a large campaign to force the telecoms and cablecos to pay back the hundreds of billions of US taxpayer dollars they were given in subsidies.
FalconWhat if Google stopped responding to requests from Virgin customers? I think Virgin would cave in pretty quickly.
As other /.ers suggested what Google, or anyone else, could do is have a special page that's displayed when a searcher's ISP throttles their connection, "Sorry but your searches will be slow because Virgin slows down your connection."
That'd strike me as a rather weird turn of phrase, since the "bus lane" is a desirable place to be. Indeed, you can get fined if you're in it during rush hour, as it's the lane with the least traffic so that the buses can get people into town quicker.
That depends. An express bus can go faster than a local bus that has to stop every couple of blocks.
FalconYeah 'cause stock owners care more about obeying the law and being ethical than they do about screwing every last penny out of everyone else, their customer, competitors, own business employees, small children at sweet shops ...
Rise of ethical consumer to support growth in green investing.
FalconTake control of your political process away from the corporations.
I try to, nonviolently.
FalconI paid to invent and build that Internet that Virgin Media is now holding hostage for charging ransom against the billing model that made it worth holding for ransom. That's not a "free market", except in the corporate handouts you "Libertarians" love to pretend is "free" because you'd love to be the next ripoff artist yourself.
That is no free market to a libertarian. Libertarians encourage competition which lowers prices and increases quality, or in this case, speed.
FalconLet's face it, there's a lot to be said for net priorities over net neutrality that makes it a lot more consumer friendly. A modest move towards charging content providers for customer access would have the effect of getting rid of a lot of marginal or crappy content that clogs even google these days.
Yea, let's face it. I pay for my connection and Google pays for it's connection. If my ISP throttles Google they are throttling my connection too and I signed no agreement or contract saying they can do that. Providers already have reciprocal agreements to pass on data that goes over their lines.
]I mean, I honestly, at this point, would be very happy if my ISP filtered out link farm sites, or, better still, if they just went out of business because the ad revenue was no longer sufficient to make them profitable.
Is it also ok to block competitors or alternative voices?
it also stands to reason that having a non-neutral internet makes possible offerings that might be more attractive to people than a merely neutral internet.
It also stands to reason they are limiting choice. If they don't like what you say they block you.
a lot of people do actually eat Big Macs, because they like them, and a lot of people are going to like a net that isn't neutral.
Like communists and fascists.
FalconHow do you think the cable companies got started? One cable at a time.
You left out one government granted monopoly to use the right of way at a tyme.
FalconWas a time when the idea of a single provider of anything in a given area was considered an opportunity.
It is as long as you can get government permission and can afford to string up or lay the infrastructure needed. Even today most places don't have a choice as to who provides landline phone service. In most place there's only provider. It's the same with cable. I'm hoping wireless technologies will open up choice in broadband.
FalconThis is my last response as you're doing exactly what you accuse me of doing.
First you assumed that I am against the 2nd amendment as a personal right, and then launched a tirade against me replete with quotation.
I did no such thing. Not once in my part about the 2nd Amendment did I say you were against it as a personal right. I dare you to point out where I did.
Then you later accused me suggesting that by mentioning requirements for election, I was attempting to justify an oligarchy, aristocracy, an elite class, and the mere suggestion that I would only want a particular class of people reeks of an insinuation of racism or sexism or something-ism that I can only say is deplorable.
Perhaps your reading comprehension is below par, but I made no such statement. Instead I asked if that's what you meant as I have no idea what other requirements you would require.
Anymore correspondence on my part would be a waste of my tyme.
FalconYeah... Why don't you invest your money in CDOs, Securitized Products with different Traches for safety. Probably the Tranche 5(with most risk) would earn you so much money.
Right, invest in these bundled credit instruments. They're part of the reason for the economic slowdown if not recession we're in. But I suppose you know that. I'd stay away from them and stay with stocks and bonds. If I were able to invest, I'm on disability and don't work, I'd invest say 25% of my investments in aggressive growth stocks. Another 50% in growth stocks, 15% in income stocks, and 10% in value stocks. That is after I had 6 months living expenses in money market funds, CDs, and in savings. I'm hoping, rsn, to start working as a photographer and when I do I'll start my investments in growth stocks. Oh, like my brother-in-law did, I'd also like to do some trading once I built up enough of a fund to do so.
Falconwell the days where there are so much CO and particulates from the cars are well, almost, over nowadays at least for my city
And how about Shanghai or Beijing? What of the new cities in the desert in the west? There's talk the athletes may need to wear masks during the Olympics.
I live in Hong Kong
How do you like it? I wanted to go not to just Hong Kong but China. Years ago I was taking a class in Mandarin, well spoken. For writing we used both the Chinese ideograms and Pin Yin romanization.
FalconSince you already have to pay for goods shipped in from other states at traditional storefronts, it only makes sense to allow Amazon to be taxed.
Amazon is taxed, they pay property tax where they use services, and they pay fuel tax where they ship stuff.
That said, I'm generally opposed to sales taxes, as they are regressive, and think that progressive income taxation is the way to go.
Yea, make workers pay tax for the privilege of working while letting them consume as much as they want without being taxed.
FalconNY also is trying to force Seneca store owners on sovereign indian land to collect NY sales tax.
Yea, I read about how NY tried to get the tribes to collect the tobacco taxes back in the 1990s.
FalconWe can't even agree on most of the amendments, certain sentences are twisted and abused, the entire constitution of the US is wrapped up in a semantic nightmare wherein we try to interpret what we -want- to interpret out of a two hundred year old document.
The only reason the amendments, and Constitution, have been twisted around is so that those who do the twisting get to say what it means. Take for instance the 2nd, because it mentions militias anti-guns activists say the right to bare arms is not a person right only a collective right. However if you read the writing of the Founding Fathers that it is in fact a personal right, the Founding Fathers feared government and wanted people to have the means of overthrowing the government. Thomas Jefferson said it quite succulently when he wrote:
"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
It wasn't long ago that people didn't directly vote in their Representatives and Senators.
The citizens voted for the Representatives it was the Senators the state legislators chose, see:
Section 2 - The House
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States
And:
Section 3 - The Senate
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, (chosen by the Legislature thereof,) (The preceding words in parentheses superseded by 17th Amendment, section 1.) for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.
That's a pretty big change don't you think?
And changed via the 17th Amendment.
The fact that the constitution sets out so little on the requirements for election?
The only requirement I see that could be added was a test on the Constitution, which I fear most politicians would lose. Are you suggesting only a certain class of people should be representatives and senators, an aristocracy? The Constitution specifically bans an aristocracy.
FDR was the guy who introduced Social Security, which is going to pay you to live after you retire because none of the banks or corporate pension schemes are willing to pay you.
That same money deduced to pay Social Security would earn you more if you invested it in stocks. Whereas SS only increases with a cost of living adjustment, which is tied to inflation, the stock market averages much more over an extended period of tyme, even over 20 years. Starting at the age of 18 a person can invest $2000 a year for 7 years, until they're 25 then not invest any more money and with an ROI, Return on Investment, of 10% a year when they reach the age of 65 they will have more than $800,000 invested. Think Social Security can beat that? At 65 even if you put $800,000 into US Treasury securities earning 4% that's still $32,000 a year, tax deductible. Social Security has outlived it's usefulness.
FalconThis is an eventuality, and a needed leveling of the playing field. Why should a multi-billion dollar company get a competitive advantage over local businesses?
Hey, those local businesses can sell online too. I knew 2 people who had their own book stores, both in converted houses. Both put a store online thus expanding their market reach a lot. One of them sold her brick and mortar store after a couple of years as she was making more from her online store than she did at her physical location.
Falconthis is quite an untrue statement considering the amount of particulates & carcinogens after combustion of fuel oil compared with cigrette
Because of those particulates and carcinogens, as well as greenhouse gases, exhaust fumes are much worse than cigarette smoke. You can be in a smoked filled room and not suffer anything more than heavy breathing but try being in an exhaust filled room and you'll pass out soon. Heck that's one way people commit suicide, start their car in the garage with all garage doors and windows closed then they soon pass out after which they'll die of carbon monoxide poisoning. I smoke and used to ride my bike 200+ miles a week, and I never had the breathing problems from smoking I'd get from riding my bike in heavy traffic. Heck I used to smoke while running without suffering shorten of breath but there were tymes riding my bike when I had to get off the road because I'd be too short of breath.
FalconNo, seriously. The EU is the ironically more successful implementation of the ideals laid out by our founders. It's missing as firm a constitutional backing, which I imagine will be rectified eventually
Are you serious? Have you seen how many pages the proposed EU Constitution had that the French vetoed? 485 pages. The USA Constitution only needs 1, 2 pages at most. The amendments fit on another 2 pages. And unlike the Constitution of the USA, which lays out only what the federal government can do, the EU Constitution detailed what the government must do or guaranty.
Falconif the catalog company is in Maine and you are in Florida, then you don't pay Jack Schitt for taxes
Oh but if you live in Florida, I used to, you may be legally required to pay a use tax. Florida has no income tax so there's a special form that's supposed to be filled out. Other states have a line on their income tax forms where people are supposed to list what they bought from out of state.
FalconThe only reason that the USA wound up with a strong federal government was because the previous "federal" government, the Articles of Confederation,
Actually the reason the federal government got so strong was because of the Civil War. Prior to it states had more power and the federal government had less. Ultimately that's what the civil war was about, it wasn't about slavery.
FalconI really don't understand this idea in the US of every state doing everything individually in their own little way.
So then you also believe there should only be one research lab? Because that's what the states are, research labs. Each state get to do research and try out different things. Then what works in one state another one can try too and what doesn't work the other state doesn't need to try. Having 50 labs will find solutions faster than having only 1 lab.
Falconi think the anti-smoking people would be quite content if the laws are to make people smoke only in their premises, and only when no other people are present. this will stop MOST incident of smoking...
Only an outright ban on smoking will satisfy some anti-smoking advocates, some want to ban smoking even in private residences. All these bans do is turn otherwise law abiding people into criminals. And the US already has the highest prison population, per capita at least. Yet how many of these people also oppose vehicles? Not many I bet, yet the exhaust from vehicles is much worse than cigarette smoke.
Falcona prospering corporation means better service (for you and me) and prospering share-holders (you and me);
A prospering corporation may mean better service but it doesn't have to mean that. And I doubt many people are stockholders.
So some New Yorkers get to save money while other New Yorkers (especially the Mom and Pops) lose out on MORE money. That does indirectly affect New Yorkers too, since less money being made by businesses translates into less jobs, lower salaries, less benefits, etc.
The New York shops have their home state to blame
I agree here. There's another thing I doubt many have thought of, I certainly hadn't until I read something about it. Many people believe money spent at a locally owned business will stay there, and this is one reason I'd preferred to support them myself, however it's not necessarily true. I used to love going to this one Middle Eastern deli where I used to live. It was owned by a Syrian or Syrian-American. Some might think he spent or invested his money locally, but he may of actually sent a lot of money to relatives in Syria as remittances. These remittances sent back home, wherever home is, is actually more money than all of the foreign assistance or aid given.
FalconThe Constitution is also not the "Alpha and Omega" of morality and ethics. The inequalities it had for non-whites and female citizens were corrected eventually
The original "Declaration Of Independence" though did have equality in it. When Thomas Jefferson wrote the DOI he wrote that Blacks and women had the same rights and slavery should be abolished. However others had to approve it so those parts were removed from the final version.
I can hear it now, somebody's saying TJ was a slave owner and therefore couldn't believe in abolishing slavery. Well every slave he owned he inherited from his father or his father-in-law. He didn't buy any slaves himself but he did free some, and wanted to free all of them but he was frequently in financial trouble and thought he couldn't afford to.
Falcon