Any plastics (I'm assuming these are thermoform) that can't be recycled can be converted into raw energy in Mr. Fusion. It's not like recycling is even all that good, the energy cost is higher than producing new plastic, and the quality of the recycled plastic is not as good.
Really? I think I would have noticed it, if you actually did say it.
Here it is:
But anyway, presumably the same ability for telcos to compete with cable companies would also mean non-telcos (cable companies?) to compete with telco monopolies. So, either way, monopolies get busted.
Next you said...
No, the telcos just have monopolies on phone service instead. Same difference!
Since I was talking about television service monopolies, it's not exactly the "same difference". Also, there are at least three local telephone service operators where I live, in fact we just switched to get a lower price. And there are numerous long distance carriers. The cable television market is a lot more monopolistic than telephone, and the government interferes a lot more with television than they do phones. It's video franchising laws that are keeping the fiber out. That's why I don't get 30Mbps.
The reason I know that Verizon wants my business is three-fold. For one thing, they've set up a VHO in my state, within range of my town, and are negotiating franchises throughout the state. Secondly, Verizon is reporting that they've expanded their FiOS service extensively since intitial roll-out. It only makes sense that they'll continue. They're clearly going after marketshare. And third, Verizon is a business. Businesses want to make money. They will make money by providing me with service. It's simple business logic.
It's obvious that you haven't been following Cable/FiOS news at all, or you'd know that your claims that they would throttle service are unfounded. In fact, they recently announced that they are upping their speeds in a few places that already get their service. I don't remember exactly, but I believe it's the NY/CT area that will be getting faster speeds. I also read recently that they are going to start switching to GPON from BPON, which would add bandwidth capability to their network. The fastest cable speed I've heard of was from Cablevision, running 15Mbps. 30Mbps sorta blows that out of the water, don't you think?
Your anecdote is rather interesting. But you're in a better situation than what I have. I have 6Mbps on a good day with Comcast, but it's usually 3-4. If I was to get DSL, it'd be about 1.5Mbps tops. But honestly, I don't believe DSL can be considered a competitor. It tried to raise speeds to challenge Comcast, but Comcast raised their speed, and then DSL simply became the cheaper-but-slower alternative. I'd like to see Cablevision or Time Warner Cable and Verizon enter my area and provide actual competition.
Among other things, the RIAA colludes with/bribes/whatever radio stations in order to prevent them from playing music not endorsed by the RIAA.
You're not going to make me sound like I'm defending the RIAA/MPAA, are you? I'm not. What I'd rather have is the government going after actual problems than ones that are make-believe/issue-of-the-month. I'd rather see people writing letters to their representatives in government to repeal the DMCA or investigate RIAA illegal behaviors than to tell them to take a hard stand on some "net neutrality" concept.
Why aren't other industries the same as last-mile telco networks? The only thing I see that makes them different is the level of government interference.
Electrical utilities don't as well as they should. Maybe better than some third world countries, but demand seems to be outstripping supply and problems are rarely fixed quickly. There are a number of things I'd like to see done, but none of it terribly relevant to this discussion.
The only difference between telecom and plumbing is that the government doesn't make it extremely difficult for a new plumber to set up a business in your region.
What makes last-mile networks to generate is a desire to make more money off of that network. Don't underestimate a company's desire to make more money. And maybe you just don't see it because it's happening slowly, but companies like Verizon are putting out fiber. What's slowing them up is the franchises they have to negotiate with every town before they can do it. If you're complaining about reasonable prices, maybe you should blame the lack of competition- competition stifled by the government you're so eager to get more involved.
There are other companies besides AT&T that can offer services. Take a look at the law to find out why they aren't offering you those services.
They've already divided the spoils. The government helped them do it and is helping them keep their little regional monopolies, that's the problem. That's the only problem. Get rid of that government protection, and these companies will be able to actually compete with each other. Why would they want to do this? Because they want more money, and the only way you get more money is by getting more customers. That means expanding your coverage, producing a better service, and it's already starting to happen. Verizon is trying to expand their FiOS service as quickly as they can negotiate thousands of franchises. Maybe you're happy with your regional monopoly's services, but I can't wait for my municipality to finally have some competition. AT&T is also trying to get into the television game, but it's taking time for them too. I for one don't like barriers in the way of cheaper and faster service, but maybe you're happy with the status quo.
There's nothing fictional about the free market, you can see it working fine in other industries. Government regulation is what screwed up the ISPs to begin with.
First of all, I was clear that in cases of telco monopolies, cable operators could bust those up as well. But again, I don't know of any telcos that have regional monopolies on television services. And it's cable franchising laws that are keeping many new television services (along with high-speed fiber internet) from expanding as quickly as it could. Verizon FiOS is the perfect example of this. There is one town in my state that can get their service. It has nothing to do with the expense of laying fiber, Verizon would love to pay the money to bring it to my area, because people are itching to drop Comcast, and Verizon would make their money back pretty fast. But it takes six months to a year, or even more if they have to literally sue a municipality for unreasonable demands, to negotiate a franchise everywhere. That is what's holding up the "better than DSL". As for the RIAA and MPAA, I'd say the problem is more a matter of government not understanding technology (sound familiar?) rather than the law being dead. You want the same people passing the DMCA to start telling ISPs how to deal with data packets? You expect more government regulation to turn out for the best? Now who's being naive...
They can control how they behave within the market, what services they offer, etc. But hey, so does your grocery store and your plumber. And if they behave in a way that customers don't like, and the services they offer aren't very good, they'll go out of business pretty quick, will they not? There is nothing fundamentally flawed about the assumption that the customer controls the market. You can see it proven on a daily basis, all around the world, in pretty much every industry. The only times and places you don't see customers controlling the market is where a monopoly exists or government regulation prevents competitive actions. With regulatory-enforced monopolies in the ISP business, we've got a problem. If you remove the barriers to competition, you will see a return to normalcy, with better internet for everyone. What's happening now is not normal, and is not how it would be wihout regulation.
I don't think I'm a libertarian. They seem sort of crazy to me and I've never voted for one. But I suppose if by "libertarian" you mean "capitalist", then I guess that's my platform on this issue.
You talk about private equipment and business connections, but what's to say that those aren't immune from net neutrality legislation? I don't trust congress to understand the distinction, quite frankly. Nor even if that distinction was clear do I think it's a good idea. VoIP is just an example of a service that requires lower latency, but who can say what's down the road? I don't think that mid-term election issue legislation could keep up with changing technology. And as somebody has already said, cell phones and related technologies were only able to take off after the loosening of regulations. If we put net neutrality on the books, who is to say what new technology will be delayed as a result? Video streaming? Web conferences? Here's a thought, instead of paying $5 a gallon at the pump, work from home with a cheaper faster internet connection.
I don't think that Google should pay twice for their bandwidth, nor do I think that the market would stand for it. I doubt Google would fork over extra money, and I doubt customers wouldn't complain about degraded service. People do call their ISPs about connection problems now, and it costs the ISP to have to answer those phones. If you get over the FUD spread on both sides of the non-issue, it comes down to a simple choice. Do you want the government to control your tubes and dump trucks, or would you rather have the opportunity to use your hard-earned money where you want? Me, I want fiber optic lines running into my home with enough bandwith so that service-degradation won't ever be a necessity. I'd rather the government worry about other kinds of tubes.
Their interest is in making money. I have no illusions about that. But as a customer, it's my money they're after, and they'll have to earn it. And if they can't earn it, I'll spend it somewhere else. Oh wait, because of government interference, I can't spend it somewhere else. Thanks, regulations. You really saved the day for me by forcing me to only have one choice. Anyway, it's clear that I'm not going to convince you. It's not your fault you can't understand how a free market works, because of government regulation you've never seen it in action.
Maybe I just have a different definition of "free reign", but mine goes something like "monopolies can do whatever they want because nobody is competing with them".
And maybe I also have a different definition of "monopoly", but mine goes something like "a company that has a lack of competition in a market".
So, if you let in the telcos to compete with cable operators who in many cases fit the above definition of monopoly, then by definition, there will no longer be a monopoly. Thus, telcos will bust up monopolies if given the chance to enter the market.
Now, at least where I've lived, telcos don't have monopolies on high-speed internet or television service. Maybe it's different where you are. And I want to be clear, I'm not talking about DSL. DSL is weaksauce compared to fiber and doesn't have television services. But anyway, presumably the same ability for telcos to compete with cable companies would also mean non-telcos (cable companies?) to compete with telco monopolies. So, either way, monopolies get busted.
Now, as for collusion, that would be illegal under existing law, so if you're worried about that, there's still no need to add more laws.
Firstly, in a free unregulated market, the corporations don't control things. It's a direct democracy where every dollar you spend is a vote. If you're not spending your money, the corporations won't exist for very long (except when the government bails out failing businesses, like the airline industry, something I don't agree with either).
Secondly, the most practical problem with government regulation in my mind is that I'd rather the government be spending its time, money, and energy (wait, I take that back, MY time, money, and energy) on things that actually matter. Regulation's cost is not just the money they put into doing it, but also the things that that money didn't go into, and therefore we never got. Regulation means more expensive health care. Regulation means more people living on the streets with no jobs and no hope. Regulation means a government seemingly unable to deal with growing problems around the world. Would you rather your congressman or congresswoman occupy themselves with making laws they don't understand about how your internet packets are treated, or would you rather they try to make sure people have jobs, food, medicine, and a place to live?
If you don't like that explaination much, wanting something a little more specific and immediate, how about poor-quality VoIP? If we continue to let monopolies have free-reign in their own regions, devoid of competition from other broadband providers, then you're going to keep having relatively low-bandwidth broadband. Instead of 30Mbps like you might get if a fiber service was allowed into your area, you're stuck on 6Mbps. And as more people are using more bandwidth-intensive internet services, each being treated exactly the same, that VoIP call you're making is going to start getting choppy instead of your non-essential website download going a tiny bit slower. And of course businesses are going to be upset that suddenly their contract for QoS is illegal and they can't conduct their business properly.
Heh, all I did was watch the video, and my computer's volume was even muted. But from what it looked like, they were simply using man-made landmarks to show off the software, which considering how symetrical and pattern-based man-made constructions tend to be, I wasn't terribly impressed. Still, if it's free and easy to get, I might try it out someday.
I'm arguing against net neutrality, but I'm not arguing in favor of giving monopolies free reign. They already have free reign. What I'm arguing for is to end this pointless debate about net neutrality, and then allow the telcos to come in and bust up the monopolies already in place by cable companies. Ta-da! No more monopolies, and if one of the MSOs suddenly stops being neutral and I happen to care about that, I can easily jump ship to another MSO that is neutral, or not neutral in a way that I don't object to.
If nothing else will convince you, consider this. Do you really want a bunch of people in their 50s-70s who don't understand even the most basic of technologies involved with the internet to control it? Regardless of whatever flaws ISPs may have, at the very least they understand the technology, know how to use it, and are willing to take risks to get a greater profit. And remember that that profit comes from customers, who if given choices, will pick the service that will provide them the greatest service for the least price. In the free unregulated market, you can vote on a daily basis with your dollar. If you leave these decisions up to those who don't understand the technology or your needs, and rely heavily on lobbyists, how can you possibly get the most for that dollar?
Exactly. If you think about it, there are literally thousands of municipalities across the country. Each one (except in the case of a few states passing state-wide franchising laws) must be individually negotiated with, and at all points the current monopoly in your area can lobby against it. It's an extremely expensive proposition to even get permission to compete, and in some cases permission is not being given (there's some lawsuits going around now as a result of unreasonable demands- I saw one case where a county wanted something like 65 public access channels). A lot of these telcos have some really interesting ideas for television and can offer much faster speeds than cable, but they just can't bring it to market because the government is stopping them. It's not a net neutrality issue, it's a government-sponsored monopoly issue.
"If company A charges me too much for broadband, then I'll go to company B!" What exactly do you when there is no company B in your small town?
Well since currently regulation requires Company B to have to jump through all kinds of hoops if they're allowed into your small town to begin with, you're in trouble. But this is where "the market will pay exactly what something is worth" comes in. If Company A doesn't offer enough to justify what it's costing you, then you don't pay for it. If they want your business at that price, they'll have to offer more, or lower their price until you want to be their customer. Net neutrality is such a non-issue, it makes me sick every time I have to hear about it. The issue is Companies B, C, D, and E can't get into your small town because of government. Fix that problem with deregulation, and nobody is going to care about "net neutrality".
Wow I butchered that post. Should say: "Anybody else catch that bottle of Microsoft Brain Wash in the video? At least somebody's got a sense of humor over there..."
Man-made objects should be pretty easy for software to put together. We tend to build things in a non-random fashion. I'd be a lot more interested to see how well this software works with natural objects like trees (blowing in the wind, no less) than it works with buildings.
I had a math teacher in high school that the NSA tried to recruit just out of college. He decided against it because they wouldn't tell him what his job would be until after he had the full security check and agreed to work for them. So, as I'm sure you've already figured out, he ended up working as a teacher.
I agree that the Science Museum would be a great group to do this, for many reasons. But I also agree that they may be quite unwilling to do so. It really could get ugly fast.
A superior alternative would be better funding of non-profit medical research, which could produce just as many drugs, drugs that aren't simply treatments, and drugs that come at a much reduced cost to the user.
As for life without big pharma, well like anything, other entities would move in to meet the demand. Entities run by those who don't mind 1/3 the salary (I'm going by numbers 25 years old here, but I imagine the difference between non-profit and for-profit medical research salaries have only widened) if it means doing good things to help people, not just get them on some expensive treatment plan that never ends.
Sure, there have been some good drugs coming out of big pharma, but that doesn't excuse everything else they do, nor make it the superior system. I think a better comparison would be to look at what they've done relative to their budgets.
Slashdot Mirror
How can you patent a payment method? This doesn't make any sense.
Any plastics (I'm assuming these are thermoform) that can't be recycled can be converted into raw energy in Mr. Fusion. It's not like recycling is even all that good, the energy cost is higher than producing new plastic, and the quality of the recycled plastic is not as good.
I'd love to have my own Plastic... Bridgesq.
A period is not an "and".
Here it is:
Next you said...
Since I was talking about television service monopolies, it's not exactly the "same difference". Also, there are at least three local telephone service operators where I live, in fact we just switched to get a lower price. And there are numerous long distance carriers. The cable television market is a lot more monopolistic than telephone, and the government interferes a lot more with television than they do phones. It's video franchising laws that are keeping the fiber out. That's why I don't get 30Mbps.
The reason I know that Verizon wants my business is three-fold. For one thing, they've set up a VHO in my state, within range of my town, and are negotiating franchises throughout the state. Secondly, Verizon is reporting that they've expanded their FiOS service extensively since intitial roll-out. It only makes sense that they'll continue. They're clearly going after marketshare. And third, Verizon is a business. Businesses want to make money. They will make money by providing me with service. It's simple business logic.
It's obvious that you haven't been following Cable/FiOS news at all, or you'd know that your claims that they would throttle service are unfounded. In fact, they recently announced that they are upping their speeds in a few places that already get their service. I don't remember exactly, but I believe it's the NY/CT area that will be getting faster speeds. I also read recently that they are going to start switching to GPON from BPON, which would add bandwidth capability to their network. The fastest cable speed I've heard of was from Cablevision, running 15Mbps. 30Mbps sorta blows that out of the water, don't you think?
Your anecdote is rather interesting. But you're in a better situation than what I have. I have 6Mbps on a good day with Comcast, but it's usually 3-4. If I was to get DSL, it'd be about 1.5Mbps tops. But honestly, I don't believe DSL can be considered a competitor. It tried to raise speeds to challenge Comcast, but Comcast raised their speed, and then DSL simply became the cheaper-but-slower alternative. I'd like to see Cablevision or Time Warner Cable and Verizon enter my area and provide actual competition.
You're not going to make me sound like I'm defending the RIAA/MPAA, are you? I'm not. What I'd rather have is the government going after actual problems than ones that are make-believe/issue-of-the-month. I'd rather see people writing letters to their representatives in government to repeal the DMCA or investigate RIAA illegal behaviors than to tell them to take a hard stand on some "net neutrality" concept.
Why aren't other industries the same as last-mile telco networks? The only thing I see that makes them different is the level of government interference.
Electrical utilities don't as well as they should. Maybe better than some third world countries, but demand seems to be outstripping supply and problems are rarely fixed quickly. There are a number of things I'd like to see done, but none of it terribly relevant to this discussion.
The only difference between telecom and plumbing is that the government doesn't make it extremely difficult for a new plumber to set up a business in your region.
What makes last-mile networks to generate is a desire to make more money off of that network. Don't underestimate a company's desire to make more money. And maybe you just don't see it because it's happening slowly, but companies like Verizon are putting out fiber. What's slowing them up is the franchises they have to negotiate with every town before they can do it. If you're complaining about reasonable prices, maybe you should blame the lack of competition- competition stifled by the government you're so eager to get more involved.
There are other companies besides AT&T that can offer services. Take a look at the law to find out why they aren't offering you those services.
They've already divided the spoils. The government helped them do it and is helping them keep their little regional monopolies, that's the problem. That's the only problem. Get rid of that government protection, and these companies will be able to actually compete with each other. Why would they want to do this? Because they want more money, and the only way you get more money is by getting more customers. That means expanding your coverage, producing a better service, and it's already starting to happen. Verizon is trying to expand their FiOS service as quickly as they can negotiate thousands of franchises. Maybe you're happy with your regional monopoly's services, but I can't wait for my municipality to finally have some competition. AT&T is also trying to get into the television game, but it's taking time for them too. I for one don't like barriers in the way of cheaper and faster service, but maybe you're happy with the status quo.
There's nothing fictional about the free market, you can see it working fine in other industries. Government regulation is what screwed up the ISPs to begin with.
First of all, I was clear that in cases of telco monopolies, cable operators could bust those up as well. But again, I don't know of any telcos that have regional monopolies on television services. And it's cable franchising laws that are keeping many new television services (along with high-speed fiber internet) from expanding as quickly as it could. Verizon FiOS is the perfect example of this. There is one town in my state that can get their service. It has nothing to do with the expense of laying fiber, Verizon would love to pay the money to bring it to my area, because people are itching to drop Comcast, and Verizon would make their money back pretty fast. But it takes six months to a year, or even more if they have to literally sue a municipality for unreasonable demands, to negotiate a franchise everywhere. That is what's holding up the "better than DSL". As for the RIAA and MPAA, I'd say the problem is more a matter of government not understanding technology (sound familiar?) rather than the law being dead. You want the same people passing the DMCA to start telling ISPs how to deal with data packets? You expect more government regulation to turn out for the best? Now who's being naive...
They can control how they behave within the market, what services they offer, etc. But hey, so does your grocery store and your plumber. And if they behave in a way that customers don't like, and the services they offer aren't very good, they'll go out of business pretty quick, will they not? There is nothing fundamentally flawed about the assumption that the customer controls the market. You can see it proven on a daily basis, all around the world, in pretty much every industry. The only times and places you don't see customers controlling the market is where a monopoly exists or government regulation prevents competitive actions. With regulatory-enforced monopolies in the ISP business, we've got a problem. If you remove the barriers to competition, you will see a return to normalcy, with better internet for everyone. What's happening now is not normal, and is not how it would be wihout regulation.
I don't think I'm a libertarian. They seem sort of crazy to me and I've never voted for one. But I suppose if by "libertarian" you mean "capitalist", then I guess that's my platform on this issue.
You talk about private equipment and business connections, but what's to say that those aren't immune from net neutrality legislation? I don't trust congress to understand the distinction, quite frankly. Nor even if that distinction was clear do I think it's a good idea. VoIP is just an example of a service that requires lower latency, but who can say what's down the road? I don't think that mid-term election issue legislation could keep up with changing technology. And as somebody has already said, cell phones and related technologies were only able to take off after the loosening of regulations. If we put net neutrality on the books, who is to say what new technology will be delayed as a result? Video streaming? Web conferences? Here's a thought, instead of paying $5 a gallon at the pump, work from home with a cheaper faster internet connection.
I don't think that Google should pay twice for their bandwidth, nor do I think that the market would stand for it. I doubt Google would fork over extra money, and I doubt customers wouldn't complain about degraded service. People do call their ISPs about connection problems now, and it costs the ISP to have to answer those phones. If you get over the FUD spread on both sides of the non-issue, it comes down to a simple choice. Do you want the government to control your tubes and dump trucks, or would you rather have the opportunity to use your hard-earned money where you want? Me, I want fiber optic lines running into my home with enough bandwith so that service-degradation won't ever be a necessity. I'd rather the government worry about other kinds of tubes.
Their interest is in making money. I have no illusions about that. But as a customer, it's my money they're after, and they'll have to earn it. And if they can't earn it, I'll spend it somewhere else. Oh wait, because of government interference, I can't spend it somewhere else. Thanks, regulations. You really saved the day for me by forcing me to only have one choice. Anyway, it's clear that I'm not going to convince you. It's not your fault you can't understand how a free market works, because of government regulation you've never seen it in action.
Maybe I just have a different definition of "free reign", but mine goes something like "monopolies can do whatever they want because nobody is competing with them".
And maybe I also have a different definition of "monopoly", but mine goes something like "a company that has a lack of competition in a market".
So, if you let in the telcos to compete with cable operators who in many cases fit the above definition of monopoly, then by definition, there will no longer be a monopoly. Thus, telcos will bust up monopolies if given the chance to enter the market.
Now, at least where I've lived, telcos don't have monopolies on high-speed internet or television service. Maybe it's different where you are. And I want to be clear, I'm not talking about DSL. DSL is weaksauce compared to fiber and doesn't have television services. But anyway, presumably the same ability for telcos to compete with cable companies would also mean non-telcos (cable companies?) to compete with telco monopolies. So, either way, monopolies get busted.
Now, as for collusion, that would be illegal under existing law, so if you're worried about that, there's still no need to add more laws.
Firstly, in a free unregulated market, the corporations don't control things. It's a direct democracy where every dollar you spend is a vote. If you're not spending your money, the corporations won't exist for very long (except when the government bails out failing businesses, like the airline industry, something I don't agree with either).
Secondly, the most practical problem with government regulation in my mind is that I'd rather the government be spending its time, money, and energy (wait, I take that back, MY time, money, and energy) on things that actually matter. Regulation's cost is not just the money they put into doing it, but also the things that that money didn't go into, and therefore we never got. Regulation means more expensive health care. Regulation means more people living on the streets with no jobs and no hope. Regulation means a government seemingly unable to deal with growing problems around the world. Would you rather your congressman or congresswoman occupy themselves with making laws they don't understand about how your internet packets are treated, or would you rather they try to make sure people have jobs, food, medicine, and a place to live?
If you don't like that explaination much, wanting something a little more specific and immediate, how about poor-quality VoIP? If we continue to let monopolies have free-reign in their own regions, devoid of competition from other broadband providers, then you're going to keep having relatively low-bandwidth broadband. Instead of 30Mbps like you might get if a fiber service was allowed into your area, you're stuck on 6Mbps. And as more people are using more bandwidth-intensive internet services, each being treated exactly the same, that VoIP call you're making is going to start getting choppy instead of your non-essential website download going a tiny bit slower. And of course businesses are going to be upset that suddenly their contract for QoS is illegal and they can't conduct their business properly.
Heh, all I did was watch the video, and my computer's volume was even muted. But from what it looked like, they were simply using man-made landmarks to show off the software, which considering how symetrical and pattern-based man-made constructions tend to be, I wasn't terribly impressed. Still, if it's free and easy to get, I might try it out someday.
I'm arguing against net neutrality, but I'm not arguing in favor of giving monopolies free reign. They already have free reign. What I'm arguing for is to end this pointless debate about net neutrality, and then allow the telcos to come in and bust up the monopolies already in place by cable companies. Ta-da! No more monopolies, and if one of the MSOs suddenly stops being neutral and I happen to care about that, I can easily jump ship to another MSO that is neutral, or not neutral in a way that I don't object to.
If nothing else will convince you, consider this. Do you really want a bunch of people in their 50s-70s who don't understand even the most basic of technologies involved with the internet to control it? Regardless of whatever flaws ISPs may have, at the very least they understand the technology, know how to use it, and are willing to take risks to get a greater profit. And remember that that profit comes from customers, who if given choices, will pick the service that will provide them the greatest service for the least price. In the free unregulated market, you can vote on a daily basis with your dollar. If you leave these decisions up to those who don't understand the technology or your needs, and rely heavily on lobbyists, how can you possibly get the most for that dollar?
Exactly. If you think about it, there are literally thousands of municipalities across the country. Each one (except in the case of a few states passing state-wide franchising laws) must be individually negotiated with, and at all points the current monopoly in your area can lobby against it. It's an extremely expensive proposition to even get permission to compete, and in some cases permission is not being given (there's some lawsuits going around now as a result of unreasonable demands- I saw one case where a county wanted something like 65 public access channels). A lot of these telcos have some really interesting ideas for television and can offer much faster speeds than cable, but they just can't bring it to market because the government is stopping them. It's not a net neutrality issue, it's a government-sponsored monopoly issue.
Wow I butchered that post. Should say: "Anybody else catch that bottle of Microsoft Brain Wash in the video? At least somebody's got a sense of humor over there..."
(Sorry)
Anybody else catch that bottle of Microsoft Brian Wash in the video? At least somebody's got a sense of humor of there...
Man-made objects should be pretty easy for software to put together. We tend to build things in a non-random fashion. I'd be a lot more interested to see how well this software works with natural objects like trees (blowing in the wind, no less) than it works with buildings.
I had a math teacher in high school that the NSA tried to recruit just out of college. He decided against it because they wouldn't tell him what his job would be until after he had the full security check and agreed to work for them. So, as I'm sure you've already figured out, he ended up working as a teacher.
I agree that the Science Museum would be a great group to do this, for many reasons. But I also agree that they may be quite unwilling to do so. It really could get ugly fast.
A superior alternative would be better funding of non-profit medical research, which could produce just as many drugs, drugs that aren't simply treatments, and drugs that come at a much reduced cost to the user.
As for life without big pharma, well like anything, other entities would move in to meet the demand. Entities run by those who don't mind 1/3 the salary (I'm going by numbers 25 years old here, but I imagine the difference between non-profit and for-profit medical research salaries have only widened) if it means doing good things to help people, not just get them on some expensive treatment plan that never ends.
Sure, there have been some good drugs coming out of big pharma, but that doesn't excuse everything else they do, nor make it the superior system. I think a better comparison would be to look at what they've done relative to their budgets.