As to the guy above who thinks charities should be losing money not making it, that is just idiotic.
Not only should charities lose money but they should also be trying to put themself out of business. If you're working on AIDS for instance you should be working to make AIDS go the way of polio or small pox, make it a part of history and no longer a problem.
Oh my god, how shortsighted. Investing in INDUSTRY in these countries IS A GOOD THING. These people need jobs. These countries need to be integrated in the Global Market. People need to quit criticizing investments in the third world. Investing in the third world IS philantropy, and Bill Gates is the biggest Philanthropist of the 21st century at this point. Shortsightedness... aargh!
Yea they need more bad health and bigger health bills. NOT!!!
Because the firms running these plants are most likely foreign based. Meaning that the profits are probably shipped outside of the country.
Failure to take Econ 101.
How do you ship profits overseas? Do you believe there is a magic wand which allows the transformation of one currency into another?
You pay someone $.50 an hour to produce that costs $1 to make then export and sale it for $20 only to pocket most of the money. However this only looks at part of the situation. It also helps to look at the employment situation in the area, how many people are employed and what the average wage is as well as what is a living wage. If the average worker only makes $.25 then you're helping but you're not if without you being there the average wage would be the same.
Also, I'd love to see you provide a modern example of people being dislocated from their farm-land in order to build an oil field (or any other kind of business), and then having no option but to work for that company. For some reason I get the distinct impression that you're just talking out of your ass.
Ok, let's try the Ijaw in the Niger Delta of Nigeria. Those who live, have lived, there for generations, have had their land taken from them and given to multinational oil companies. In return they've had oil and chemical spills as well as constant gas flares. AllAfrica has a number of articles on the Nigeria oil delta and what those living there have to live through.
It is unethical for these foundations to be investing and supporting companies that are harming the very people they are trying to help, do you not see this? This is a very difficult issue to resolve, these foundations need to make money in order to keep up their humanitarian activities, but is maximizing profits really a necessary motivation behind a huminitarian organization? They should only be striving to break even each year and this should be easily attainable without having to invest in companies based on maximum return.
Actually what these organizations should be doing would lead to obsolescene, the people working for these foundations should be working to put their employer out of business. Say the Gates Foundation, using it's money fighting AIDS, the goal would be to spend all the money to eliminate AIDS and therefore the reason it exists. Of course theory isn't very practical.
When have you met a lawyer who actually responds to phone calls?
Oh, about 9 years ago. I had two lawyers then who were retained for a lawsuit. They both, er one personally and an assistant for the other, answered phone calls. The one who didn't answer personally would be on the phone before a minute passed unless out of the office, which didn't happen often.
Do you unquestionably believe something because it's taught in school?
No I don't accept unquestioningly what's taught in school. If I did I wouldn't read/. never mind use the internet. I've almost always questioned things.
I have decided to excercise free thinking, and I have reached the conclusion that Allah and God simply cannot be the same deity, regardless of what anyone else says.
I use my own reasoning just as you can and you're entitled to your own opinions such as everyone else is.
King James, Luke 19:22-27
"bring them [those who preferred not to be ruled by him] hither, and slay them before me."
My "The New American Bible" isn't about what Jesus says, it's about what a king says.
Luke 19 "Zacchaeus the Tax Collector":
22-27 says;
To him the king said: 'You worthless lout! I intend to judge you on your evidence. You knew I was a hard man, withdrawing what I never deposited, reaping what I never sowed! Why, then, did you not put my money out on loan, so that on my return I could get it back with interest? He said to those standing arond him, 'Take from him what he has, and give it to the man with the ten.' 'Yes, but he already has ten,' they said. He responded with, 'The moral is: whoever has will be given more, but the one who has not will lose the little he has. Now about those enemies of mine who do not want me to be king, bring then in and slay them in my presence.
Dude, you don't get it. Not agreeing with people who hate Islam (which is obviously out to DESTROY THE WEST!!!111) means you hate the West and all it stands for. It's all very logical;)
Just because some Muslims hate the west doesn't mean all do. Actually many love the west.
Maybe *you* need that refresher: you've confused Ishmael and Isaac!
I may of switched the sons around, mistaking Ishmael for Isaic but that doesn't make the rest of it wrong. Hagar's son was Abraham's first and Arabs descended from him, and Sarah's son was Abraham's second and Hebrews are his decendants.
Are you saying that people often start conflicts because they believe there other side believes in the wrong religion, e.g. Israel-Palestine Conflict?
The broader Israeli Palestinian conflict isn't about religion per se, it is about how European Jews immigrated to Palestine and took control of the area. You hear about all of these Palestinian terrorists but you never hear about Jewish terrorists. And there were a lot of them, such as the Stern Gang or Lehi group. Some of these groups even helped and was helped by the NAZIs. The SS and Gestapo even trained Jews in Germany to fight against the British in Palestine.
They're completely different deities because they teach completely different things. They're polar opposites. You may as well claim that China and Norway have the same leader.
Maybe you need to go back to school. The Hebrew and the Arab "God" is the same one. Hebrews are decendents of Abraham's son Ishmael and Arabs the decendents of his son Isaic. The split between the two came when Sarah, Ismael's mother forced Abraham to send Isaic and his mother Hagar into the desert. They all worshipped the same diety. And as Abraham was a decendent of Noah's son Shem, from where Semites come from, both Ishmael and Isaic are Semites as well therefore both Arabs and Hebrews are Semites.
Nobody complains about American libertarians "stealing" their word from the left-anarchists who followed Mikhail Bakunin. [wikipedia.org]
Let's see, the only date or year I see on the page you linked to is the founding of the Libertarian Party in 1971. Following the link for Mikhail Bkunin though the page says he lived in the 1800s. If you will follow the link for Classical Liberalism you will see it referencing people in the 1700s, specifically Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Jeremy Bentham, and John Stuart Mill. Moreover you can read how Liberalism is rooted in the Age of Enlightenment of the 1700s. All of these predate Mikhail Bakunin, and when Libertarians use the classical meaning of "liberal" they in fact are not stealing the word from him, instead he and or his followers stole the meaning from those who used it before they did.
I don't know, I don't kow which was your first post. If you meant this one about setting your own priorities, I didn't realize it was your's. But even if you set your own priorities they'd still have to work with your IPS's priorities if they prioritize traffic which I personally don't think they should do.
I want my VOIP traffic to be prioritized over my BitTorrent traffic and go through shorter queues, as far through my ISP's network as technically possible. Preferably for both upstream (where I can just set the TOS/DSCP header to specify the class) and downstream (in which that header can't be trusted - there's just the addresses, protocols, and ports). Please don't pass overbearing laws that forbid that.
As I don't use VOIP or BitTorrent, about all the services I use on the net is the web and email though I used to chat or IM, as long as my isp or their provider doesn't degrade these it doesn't much matter to me what is prioritized to me, I'd rather none be given priority over anyother. However even if I wanted to my priorities will probably conflict with other users' priorities.
I might also buy some discounted "when available" bandwidth. So please don't overbearing pass laws against prioritizing one customer's traffic over another's, either.
See above where I say my priorities may be in conflict with someone else's priorities.
I think it's premature to be passing laws about it, especially ones written by lawmakers who know nothing of technology.
I was of the same mind, no new laws. However I'm starting to think that service providers should be barred from charging those who use other providers for the bits they send, especially if it's true that those who own the last who are the same ones who want to use these charges used taxpayer money to buildup their network and lay the cables or fiber. If they received government money then they should be regulated, or forced to repay the money.
What you say seems logical but Dell still must prepare the hard drives. Since they only would sell a small fraction of Linux
drives the cost of setup is distributed over a few hundred drives rather than many thousands.
I hadn't thought of it that way, which might increase costs. However if it does I can't see it increasing nearly as much as a Windows license. Basically all they'd have to do is to create one disk image then clone it onto hdds to be installed on Linux boxes. Well one image for each hdd size used, say one 100GB, another 120GB, and a third one that's 160GB. If they use hdds with different speeds, say 7200rpm, 5400rpm, and 4200rpm apply the same methodology. Of course using so many storage bins increases the area needed and decreases the speed of the assemblers, however they already do it with Windows based PCs, or I'd imagine their methodology is similar.
What you want now is to allow corporations to ass-rape the monopolies they have to extort more money out of everybody.
No I don't. First, it's the corporations that are the monopolies. Secondly I want things opened up. I want the FCC abolished and the airwaves deregulated. The airwaves were regulated in 1934 using the technology avaiable then, however with today's tech these regulations prevent the airwaves from being fully utilized. Don't believe me, try to start a micropower, pirate, radio station. You'll end up with the mass media howling at the FCC to put you out of business. This dispite that your radio station doesn't interfer with their signals, no it interfers with their ability to make money and control what people hear.
So this makes you a true dumbfuck.
Brilliant way to make a point. NOT!!! Instead of arguing facts and merits you need to shout and name call. Typical of those who can't back up their position with reasoning. Since you can't or won't argue with reason, I'm ending.
Microsoft originally required that only Microsoft OS could be installed but this was illegal so they did the next best thing. BTW Dell use to sell computers with Linux installed. I don't know if they do any more but instead of being cheaper they charged more because they can't just grab one off of an assembly line. It takes special attention and therefore costs more. So Microsoft is still leveraging there monopoly power through their price breaks given to vendors who won't sell a bare PC.
I don't see how offering Linux preinstalled will cost more than having Windows preinstalled. All Dells are supposed to be custom built so all they'd need to do is add a hdd bin with Linux. If anything because Linux is either free or costs less than Windows having Linux preinstalled should be cheaper. The only reason it would be more expensive is if Dell still had to pay MS for a license for the PC. If true then I'd imagine this would be a break of the MS settlement, that's they're still acting like a monopoly. If so then why hasn't MS been brought back into court? Stupid question, after the Clinton admin had them on the ropes, the Bush admin let them walk away without so much as a slap on the wrist.
Charging high-volume feeds to their system is one way. It isn't necessarily the most obvious or clear-cut way but it gets around that nasty problem of raising prices to the customer. Which would certainly have the effect of driving down usage and taking customers away from Google and others.
So, would you rather see Google pay or you pay yourself? Yes, you are likely going to be paying in any event because when Google has to pay they are going to charge more for ads which will then be passed on to everyone buying stuff advertised on Google.
Guess what, both Google and I already pay for the bandwidth we use, why should Google pay my isp or whoever owns the last mile to my home for what I want to see when they already pay their own access provider? If my isp isn't making enough to stay in business then it's their own fault and not mine or Google's.
I have seen commercials on TV for "net neutrality", and I have been away from/. for a while, but I have no idea what the whole argument is about. I read the article, checked Wiki, but I don't see why there is an argument over giving time sensitive data priority. Could someone lend me a hand?
It's not just about giving tyme sensitive data priority, sure that's what those who oppose net neutrality say but it seems that it's really about some businesses, those that "own" the last mile into the home or business want to be able to charge some content providers to deliver data for faster speeds. Say you get your access through ATT and you connect to Google, ATT can tell Google that unless Google pays them they will make sure your download from Google will be slow. Or say your access is provided by Time Warner Roadrunner, now Comcast, and you're downloading music and movies from iTunes. Because Time Warner has it's own movie and music library they start their own download service. Because they don't want competition Time Warner slows down your iTunes downloads in the hope that you will use their own service instead.
First, why the government sucks at buisness: Democratic governments make decisions based on consensus of the country, decison by consensus is very inefficient.
Corporations are democratic as well. Corporations have stockholders who get to vote on shareholder resolutions as well as elect board members. And the board members may vote on where the corporation goes and how it gets there. Corporations operate by consensus. Maybe you didn't know this because you never get or read financial statements and proxies corporatons send to stockholder, but I have gotten a number of them.
ISPs should be allowed to charge context providers for priority packets to the ISPs customers. Otherwise you have government meddling in what should be a market issue.
BS, as a client of my isp I do not expect or accept them to degrade my connection just because the website I want to visit doesn't pay them a tax. I pay and to degrade my connection they are breaking thier contract with me. As for market issues, if what I've heard is true then it should be a governemnt issue. What have I heard? I've heard the governemnt gave these companies billions of dollars to upgrade the infrastructure. If true that is no free market.
Just because we tend towards libertarianism doesn't mean we're chumps. Many of us have also been around long enough to remember that at the core it isn't the company's infrastructure, it's the public's, developed and paid for with our tax dollars. We willingly pay every month to use an ISP's infrastructure to access this shared asset, but we aren't dumb enough to think that they own it, any more than we think the airlines own the sky.
As a Libertarian who is, er was, against net neutrality you and others posting on this thread have given me something to think about which may change my mind so I may support net neutrality. Others have said the government gave industry billions to build out the infrastructure, such as Fiber to Curb. If so then I think it's only appropriate that there be a neutral net.
And finally, libertarians don't (or shouldn't) intrinsically trust corporations (or, for that matter, their neighbors) any more than they trust the government.
Thomas Jefferson, a Liberal as in Classical Liberal or today's Libertarian, warned of corporations. Specifically he warned of the Corporate Aristocracy.
Slashdot Mirror
As to the guy above who thinks charities should be losing money not making it, that is just idiotic.
Not only should charities lose money but they should also be trying to put themself out of business. If you're working on AIDS for instance you should be working to make AIDS go the way of polio or small pox, make it a part of history and no longer a problem.
FalconOh my god, how shortsighted. Investing in INDUSTRY in these countries IS A GOOD THING. These people need jobs. These countries need to be integrated in the Global Market. People need to quit criticizing investments in the third world. Investing in the third world IS philantropy, and Bill Gates is the biggest Philanthropist of the 21st century at this point. Shortsightedness... aargh!
Yea they need more bad health and bigger health bills. NOT!!!
FalconBecause the firms running these plants are most likely foreign based. Meaning that the profits are probably shipped outside of the country.
Failure to take Econ 101.
How do you ship profits overseas? Do you believe there is a magic wand which allows the transformation of one currency into another?
You pay someone $.50 an hour to produce that costs $1 to make then export and sale it for $20 only to pocket most of the money. However this only looks at part of the situation. It also helps to look at the employment situation in the area, how many people are employed and what the average wage is as well as what is a living wage. If the average worker only makes $.25 then you're helping but you're not if without you being there the average wage would be the same.
FalconAlso, I'd love to see you provide a modern example of people being dislocated from their farm-land in order to build an oil field (or any other kind of business), and then having no option but to work for that company. For some reason I get the distinct impression that you're just talking out of your ass.
Ok, let's try the Ijaw in the Niger Delta of Nigeria. Those who live, have lived, there for generations, have had their land taken from them and given to multinational oil companies. In return they've had oil and chemical spills as well as constant gas flares. AllAfrica has a number of articles on the Nigeria oil delta and what those living there have to live through.
FalconIt is unethical for these foundations to be investing and supporting companies that are harming the very people they are trying to help, do you not see this? This is a very difficult issue to resolve, these foundations need to make money in order to keep up their humanitarian activities, but is maximizing profits really a necessary motivation behind a huminitarian organization? They should only be striving to break even each year and this should be easily attainable without having to invest in companies based on maximum return.
Actually what these organizations should be doing would lead to obsolescene, the people working for these foundations should be working to put their employer out of business. Say the Gates Foundation, using it's money fighting AIDS, the goal would be to spend all the money to eliminate AIDS and therefore the reason it exists. Of course theory isn't very practical.
FalconOne of the tests of Fair Use is "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."
Another test of fair use is if it news and this is most certainly news.
FalconWhen have you met a lawyer who actually responds to phone calls?
Oh, about 9 years ago. I had two lawyers then who were retained for a lawsuit. They both, er one personally and an assistant for the other, answered phone calls. The one who didn't answer personally would be on the phone before a minute passed unless out of the office, which didn't happen often.
FalconDo you unquestionably believe something because it's taught in school?
No I don't accept unquestioningly what's taught in school. If I did I wouldn't read /. never mind use the internet. I've almost always questioned things.
I have decided to excercise free thinking, and I have reached the conclusion that Allah and God simply cannot be the same deity, regardless of what anyone else says.
I use my own reasoning just as you can and you're entitled to your own opinions such as everyone else is.
FalconKing James, Luke 19:22-27
"bring them [those who preferred not to be ruled by him] hither, and slay them before me."
My "The New American Bible" isn't about what Jesus says, it's about what a king says.
Luke 19 "Zacchaeus the Tax Collector":
Falcon22-27 says;
To him the king said: 'You worthless lout! I intend to judge you on your evidence. You knew I was a hard man, withdrawing what I never deposited, reaping what I never sowed! Why, then, did you not put my money out on loan, so that on my return I could get it back with interest? He said to those standing arond him, 'Take from him what he has, and give it to the man with the ten.' 'Yes, but he already has ten,' they said. He responded with, 'The moral is: whoever has will be given more, but the one who has not will lose the little he has. Now about those enemies of mine who do not want me to be king, bring then in and slay them in my presence.
Dude, you don't get it. Not agreeing with people who hate Islam (which is obviously out to DESTROY THE WEST!!!111) means you hate the West and all it stands for. It's all very logical ;)
Just because some Muslims hate the west doesn't mean all do. Actually many love the west.
FalconMaybe *you* need that refresher: you've confused Ishmael and Isaac!
I may of switched the sons around, mistaking Ishmael for Isaic but that doesn't make the rest of it wrong. Hagar's son was Abraham's first and Arabs descended from him, and Sarah's son was Abraham's second and Hebrews are his decendants.
FalconAre you saying that people often start conflicts because they believe there other side believes in the wrong religion, e.g. Israel-Palestine Conflict?
The broader Israeli Palestinian conflict isn't about religion per se, it is about how European Jews immigrated to Palestine and took control of the area. You hear about all of these Palestinian terrorists but you never hear about Jewish terrorists. And there were a lot of them, such as the Stern Gang or Lehi group. Some of these groups even helped and was helped by the NAZIs. The SS and Gestapo even trained Jews in Germany to fight against the British in Palestine.
FalconThey're completely different deities because they teach completely different things. They're polar opposites. You may as well claim that China and Norway have the same leader.
Maybe you need to go back to school. The Hebrew and the Arab "God" is the same one. Hebrews are decendents of Abraham's son Ishmael and Arabs the decendents of his son Isaic. The split between the two came when Sarah, Ismael's mother forced Abraham to send Isaic and his mother Hagar into the desert. They all worshipped the same diety. And as Abraham was a decendent of Noah's son Shem, from where Semites come from, both Ishmael and Isaic are Semites as well therefore both Arabs and Hebrews are Semites.
FalconNobody complains about American libertarians "stealing" their word from the left-anarchists who followed Mikhail Bakunin. [wikipedia.org]
Let's see, the only date or year I see on the page you linked to is the founding of the Libertarian Party in 1971. Following the link for Mikhail Bkunin though the page says he lived in the 1800s. If you will follow the link for Classical Liberalism you will see it referencing people in the 1700s, specifically Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Jeremy Bentham, and John Stuart Mill. Moreover you can read how Liberalism is rooted in the Age of Enlightenment of the 1700s. All of these predate Mikhail Bakunin, and when Libertarians use the classical meaning of "liberal" they in fact are not stealing the word from him, instead he and or his followers stole the meaning from those who used it before they did.
FalconYou didn't read my first post, did you?
I don't know, I don't kow which was your first post. If you meant this one about setting your own priorities, I didn't realize it was your's. But even if you set your own priorities they'd still have to work with your IPS's priorities if they prioritize traffic which I personally don't think they should do.
I want my VOIP traffic to be prioritized over my BitTorrent traffic and go through shorter queues, as far through my ISP's network as technically possible. Preferably for both upstream (where I can just set the TOS/DSCP header to specify the class) and downstream (in which that header can't be trusted - there's just the addresses, protocols, and ports). Please don't pass overbearing laws that forbid that.
As I don't use VOIP or BitTorrent, about all the services I use on the net is the web and email though I used to chat or IM, as long as my isp or their provider doesn't degrade these it doesn't much matter to me what is prioritized to me, I'd rather none be given priority over anyother. However even if I wanted to my priorities will probably conflict with other users' priorities.
I might also buy some discounted "when available" bandwidth. So please don't overbearing pass laws against prioritizing one customer's traffic over another's, either.
See above where I say my priorities may be in conflict with someone else's priorities.
I think it's premature to be passing laws about it, especially ones written by lawmakers who know nothing of technology.
I was of the same mind, no new laws. However I'm starting to think that service providers should be barred from charging those who use other providers for the bits they send, especially if it's true that those who own the last who are the same ones who want to use these charges used taxpayer money to buildup their network and lay the cables or fiber. If they received government money then they should be regulated, or forced to repay the money.
FalconWhat you say seems logical but Dell still must prepare the hard drives. Since they only would sell a small fraction of Linux drives the cost of setup is distributed over a few hundred drives rather than many thousands.
I hadn't thought of it that way, which might increase costs. However if it does I can't see it increasing nearly as much as a Windows license. Basically all they'd have to do is to create one disk image then clone it onto hdds to be installed on Linux boxes. Well one image for each hdd size used, say one 100GB, another 120GB, and a third one that's 160GB. If they use hdds with different speeds, say 7200rpm, 5400rpm, and 4200rpm apply the same methodology. Of course using so many storage bins increases the area needed and decreases the speed of the assemblers, however they already do it with Windows based PCs, or I'd imagine their methodology is similar.
FalconWhat you want now is to allow corporations to ass-rape the monopolies they have to extort more money out of everybody.
No I don't. First, it's the corporations that are the monopolies. Secondly I want things opened up. I want the FCC abolished and the airwaves deregulated. The airwaves were regulated in 1934 using the technology avaiable then, however with today's tech these regulations prevent the airwaves from being fully utilized. Don't believe me, try to start a micropower, pirate, radio station. You'll end up with the mass media howling at the FCC to put you out of business. This dispite that your radio station doesn't interfer with their signals, no it interfers with their ability to make money and control what people hear.
So this makes you a true dumbfuck.
Brilliant way to make a point. NOT!!! Instead of arguing facts and merits you need to shout and name call. Typical of those who can't back up their position with reasoning. Since you can't or won't argue with reason, I'm ending.
FalconMicrosoft originally required that only Microsoft OS could be installed but this was illegal so they did the next best thing. BTW Dell use to sell computers with Linux installed. I don't know if they do any more but instead of being cheaper they charged more because they can't just grab one off of an assembly line. It takes special attention and therefore costs more. So Microsoft is still leveraging there monopoly power through their price breaks given to vendors who won't sell a bare PC.
I don't see how offering Linux preinstalled will cost more than having Windows preinstalled. All Dells are supposed to be custom built so all they'd need to do is add a hdd bin with Linux. If anything because Linux is either free or costs less than Windows having Linux preinstalled should be cheaper. The only reason it would be more expensive is if Dell still had to pay MS for a license for the PC. If true then I'd imagine this would be a break of the MS settlement, that's they're still acting like a monopoly. If so then why hasn't MS been brought back into court? Stupid question, after the Clinton admin had them on the ropes, the Bush admin let them walk away without so much as a slap on the wrist.
FalconCharging high-volume feeds to their system is one way. It isn't necessarily the most obvious or clear-cut way but it gets around that nasty problem of raising prices to the customer. Which would certainly have the effect of driving down usage and taking customers away from Google and others.
So, would you rather see Google pay or you pay yourself? Yes, you are likely going to be paying in any event because when Google has to pay they are going to charge more for ads which will then be passed on to everyone buying stuff advertised on Google.
Guess what, both Google and I already pay for the bandwidth we use, why should Google pay my isp or whoever owns the last mile to my home for what I want to see when they already pay their own access provider? If my isp isn't making enough to stay in business then it's their own fault and not mine or Google's.
FalconI remember that article. I'm trying to get at these questions:
- I pay my ISP for my bandwidth, it shouldn't matter to whom I connect.
- See 1.
- See 2.
FalconI have seen commercials on TV for "net neutrality", and I have been away from /. for a while, but I have no idea what the whole argument is about. I read the article, checked Wiki, but I don't see why there is an argument over giving time sensitive data priority. Could someone lend me a hand?
It's not just about giving tyme sensitive data priority, sure that's what those who oppose net neutrality say but it seems that it's really about some businesses, those that "own" the last mile into the home or business want to be able to charge some content providers to deliver data for faster speeds. Say you get your access through ATT and you connect to Google, ATT can tell Google that unless Google pays them they will make sure your download from Google will be slow. Or say your access is provided by Time Warner Roadrunner, now Comcast, and you're downloading music and movies from iTunes. Because Time Warner has it's own movie and music library they start their own download service. Because they don't want competition Time Warner slows down your iTunes downloads in the hope that you will use their own service instead.
FalconIf I misunderstood I apologize.
FalconFirst, why the government sucks at buisness: Democratic governments make decisions based on consensus of the country, decison by consensus is very inefficient.
Corporations are democratic as well. Corporations have stockholders who get to vote on shareholder resolutions as well as elect board members. And the board members may vote on where the corporation goes and how it gets there. Corporations operate by consensus. Maybe you didn't know this because you never get or read financial statements and proxies corporatons send to stockholder, but I have gotten a number of them.
FalconISPs should be allowed to charge context providers for priority packets to the ISPs customers. Otherwise you have government meddling in what should be a market issue.
BS, as a client of my isp I do not expect or accept them to degrade my connection just because the website I want to visit doesn't pay them a tax. I pay and to degrade my connection they are breaking thier contract with me. As for market issues, if what I've heard is true then it should be a governemnt issue. What have I heard? I've heard the governemnt gave these companies billions of dollars to upgrade the infrastructure. If true that is no free market.
FalconJust because we tend towards libertarianism doesn't mean we're chumps. Many of us have also been around long enough to remember that at the core it isn't the company's infrastructure, it's the public's, developed and paid for with our tax dollars. We willingly pay every month to use an ISP's infrastructure to access this shared asset, but we aren't dumb enough to think that they own it, any more than we think the airlines own the sky.
As a Libertarian who is, er was, against net neutrality you and others posting on this thread have given me something to think about which may change my mind so I may support net neutrality. Others have said the government gave industry billions to build out the infrastructure, such as Fiber to Curb. If so then I think it's only appropriate that there be a neutral net.
And finally, libertarians don't (or shouldn't) intrinsically trust corporations (or, for that matter, their neighbors) any more than they trust the government.
Thomas Jefferson, a Liberal as in Classical Liberal or today's Libertarian, warned of corporations. Specifically he warned of the Corporate Aristocracy.
Falcon