No entity should be able to force an innocent individual to do anything, whether that entity is a government, a corporation, a group of people, or an individual.
The proper purpose of government is to simply protect the individual against force and fraud, from any entity.
When all human interactions are voluntary, you have nothing to fear from a business - without the power of the gun (government) to force you to do things.
All of the ANWR oil, as well as all other oil on all other U.S. property, (as well as every other resource), should be free to be used for man's betterment. As long as the rights of individuals are respected (including property rights), hard-working innovators need to be unleashed from anti-human policies that restrict them from making human life as good as it can be.
How would that work with common property, such as the air, rivers, lakes, oceans, etc.?
The same way land is dealt with - as private property. Property law is complex - if you are unfamiliar with it then I would expect you to raise all kinds of "what ifs" and "what abouts", but nevertheless that's the way it ought to be.
You could kick the whole thing off with some sort of Homestead Act
You could make a similar argument for why it is important for an ISP's customers to be free to connect to other computers through protocols of their choice without interference.
This is very easy to accomplish through voluntary, contractual relationships. You don't need some bureaucrat to control everyone's behavior and tell them exactly what they can or cannot do.
I've never understood the point of Net Neutrality.
It's smacks of egalitarianism: schools must treat every student the same, work must treat every employee the same. Nobody should get too far ahead, or too far behind. Whack down all the tall daisies until all of them are as short as the shortest one.
People should be free to come up with new and innovate ways of providing network services that their customers want - and either make a profit doing so, or fail by not providing them, whether that involves shaping the traffic, or not.
Let's get away from being paranoid "bit police" - bowing down before a primitive totem of some Egalitarian network religion.
Actually there is something in nature that says ISPs cannot be forbidden from treating them differently.
In a nutshell, "forbidding" an otherwise voluntary relationship is an abrogation of freedom. Freedom is required for individuals to think and act to pursue their values, i.e. their lives.
So in nature, in order for thinking people to pursue their lives, they need freedom to think and act, which includes the freedom to create and sell services on non-net-neutrality networks.
I've read that roaming rates are quite a bit more expensive than in the U.S., and that doesn't even include the VAT and other taxes that are used to subsidize the infrastructure.
Notice that everyone here that is defending Apple's position is doing so from the perspective that whatever is good for Apple must also be good for its customers.
This may come as a surprise to you, but Apple wants customers.
No offense, but I have to believe they understand the wants and needs of their customers better than you do.
Introducing a business model that takes away existing freedoms (from a consumer perspective) is evil
I would say there is no "perspective" required - freedom is freedom, and as long as Apple, Google, whomever do not force people to do things against there will - I do not see any abrogation of "freedom".
If people make bad decisions purchasing products based on some "bandwagon" effect, that is their fault. Their dollar was their vote.
I personally didn't jump on the hype, but stayed with my Blackberry which I'm very happy with...
Apple is a great company - efficient, competitive, and pro-consumer, and so many people like them, support them by buying their products.
The "anti-free-market" is a new one to me - that is exactly what the FTC is when every important business decision a company makes must be approved by the government before being "permitted".
Acting by "permission" is the OPPOSITE of being "free".
Far from freeing the US market from SIM locking and carrier lock-in, Apple is trying to export the evil of the US cellular market to Europe.
By "evil" do you mean: "doesn't conform to what I want". But surely you must mean something else, because calling something "evil" just because "you don't like it" would be childish and petulant.
It was only a matter of time until people started calling apple "evil". While they were less successful, they were tolerated, and not discussed much.
Once they became successful, and started profiting - by providing value to millions of people, that particular group of "anti-success" comes out. You know - the ones that take pleasure at the sight of failure while spiting at the successful achievers in life.
Apple, and companies like them, should be applauded for the incredible achievements they have made, and the value they provide to people.
Try this - Java and C# folks have programming jobs with non-programming hobbies, while Python and Ruby have non-programming jobs, with programming hobbies.
Subsidies are there to actually make these cars (well not the Volt but e.g. Civic Hybrid) affordable to even to the lower middle class.
That may be the "pay-no-attention-to-the-economist-behind-the-curtain" explanation of this particular government control, but I think even an honest neo-Marxist must admit that most of these cars will be purchased using debt (loans), and government encouraging people into debt is simply the prescription for yet further financial turmoil.
Maybe if you hadn't bought that shiny new Explorer as soon as gas dropped below $4, you'd be able to take advantage of the incentives yourself.
And maybe if you don't do whatever it is you are about to do, you won't miss out on whatever the government suddenly does right after that.
The Big Picture includes things like smog, efficiency of environmental controls, the location of emissions, and a host of other factors that "coal-powered car" demonstrates profound ignorance of.
Add this to your "big picture": the cost of energy and who can afford it, the ability of inventors and entrepreneurs to bring energy innovations to market unencumbered by regulation-wielding, special-interest worshipping bureaucrats.
Slashdot Mirror
No entity should be able to force an innocent individual to do anything, whether that entity is a government, a corporation, a group of people, or an individual.
The proper purpose of government is to simply protect the individual against force and fraud, from any entity.
When all human interactions are voluntary, you have nothing to fear from a business - without the power of the gun (government) to force you to do things.
All of the ANWR oil, as well as all other oil on all other U.S. property, (as well as every other resource), should be free to be used for man's betterment. As long as the rights of individuals are respected (including property rights), hard-working innovators need to be unleashed from anti-human policies that restrict them from making human life as good as it can be.
Why did they bother?
Why did you bother to comment on it? If you don't like it - don't use it.
They also seem to have forgotten the rights of "consumers" to consume their content any way they please.
There are no special "consumer" rights, there are only individual rights, the purpose of which is to protect you from force from others.
There cannot be a so-called "right" to force someone else to give you what you want. (Like your digital heart's desires)
It's not true if our (or any other) government doesn't recognize your claim.
What I am suggesting is that a small piece of legislation be drafted, and an official announcement be made to that effect.
spending any more tax payer money to send humans into space, to the moon or mars, is a ridiculous waste
I COMPLETELY agree, so here is how you get to Mars at no expense to the taxpayer:
Announce that whoever gets to Mars first, owns it.
How would that work with common property, such as the air, rivers, lakes, oceans, etc.?
The same way land is dealt with - as private property. Property law is complex - if you are unfamiliar with it then I would expect you to raise all kinds of "what ifs" and "what abouts", but nevertheless that's the way it ought to be.
You could kick the whole thing off with some sort of Homestead Act
Any supposed "negative" externality is easily dealt with under a proper system of property rights.
If someone causes damage to you or your property - they are liable. Period.
You could make a similar argument for why it is important for an ISP's customers to be free to connect to other computers through protocols of their choice without interference.
This is very easy to accomplish through voluntary, contractual relationships. You don't need some bureaucrat to control everyone's behavior and tell them exactly what they can or cannot do.
Remember, the government is the one with the gun.
I've never understood the point of Net Neutrality.
It's smacks of egalitarianism: schools must treat every student the same, work must treat every employee the same. Nobody should get too far ahead, or too far behind. Whack down all the tall daisies until all of them are as short as the shortest one.
People should be free to come up with new and innovate ways of providing network services that their customers want - and either make a profit doing so, or fail by not providing them, whether that involves shaping the traffic, or not.
Let's get away from being paranoid "bit police" - bowing down before a primitive totem of some Egalitarian network religion.
Actually there is something in nature that says ISPs cannot be forbidden from treating them differently.
In a nutshell, "forbidding" an otherwise voluntary relationship is an abrogation of freedom. Freedom is required for individuals to think and act to pursue their values, i.e. their lives.
So in nature, in order for thinking people to pursue their lives, they need freedom to think and act, which includes the freedom to create and sell services on non-net-neutrality networks.
I've read that roaming rates are quite a bit more expensive than in the U.S., and that doesn't even include the VAT and other taxes that are used to subsidize the infrastructure.
that's the only way to do QOS without violating the principle of network neutrality.
So violate network neutrality. There is nothing in nature that dictates every bit of every packet from every person must be treated identically.
Notice that everyone here that is defending Apple's position is doing so from the perspective that whatever is good for Apple must also be good for its customers.
This may come as a surprise to you, but Apple wants customers.
No offense, but I have to believe they understand the wants and needs of their customers better than you do.
Introducing a business model that takes away existing freedoms (from a consumer perspective) is evil
I would say there is no "perspective" required - freedom is freedom, and as long as Apple, Google, whomever do not force people to do things against there will - I do not see any abrogation of "freedom".
If people make bad decisions purchasing products based on some "bandwagon" effect, that is their fault. Their dollar was their vote.
I personally didn't jump on the hype, but stayed with my Blackberry which I'm very happy with...
Apple is a great company - efficient, competitive, and pro-consumer, and so many people like them, support them by buying their products.
The "anti-free-market" is a new one to me - that is exactly what the FTC is when every important business decision a company makes must be approved by the government before being "permitted".
Acting by "permission" is the OPPOSITE of being "free".
I smell something funny......
That's the smell of Fascism: you know, government control over private industry with "token ownership" retained by individuals.
How could Apple possibly know what "end user experience" best suits me?
That's the smell of Fascism: you know, government control over private industry with "token ownership" retained by individuals.
i.e. when bureaucrats determine which business decisions are allowed, or not.
How could Apple possibly know what "end user experience" best suits me?
Apple is not concerned with you (nor should it be). Apple is concerned with delivering products that give lots of people value.
If you don't like it - don't use it.
Apple can no more determine what kind of experience you have, any more than McDonald's can determine what kind of food you eat.
Your dollar is your vote
Far from freeing the US market from SIM locking and carrier lock-in, Apple is trying to export the evil of the US cellular market to Europe.
By "evil" do you mean: "doesn't conform to what I want". But surely you must mean something else, because calling something "evil" just because "you don't like it" would be childish and petulant.
It was only a matter of time until people started calling apple "evil". While they were less successful, they were tolerated, and not discussed much.
Once they became successful, and started profiting - by providing value to millions of people, that particular group of "anti-success" comes out. You know - the ones that take pleasure at the sight of failure while spiting at the successful achievers in life.
Apple, and companies like them, should be applauded for the incredible achievements they have made, and the value they provide to people.
We could pay nearly 1/4 of the US deficit.
Ok - but are you male or female?
Try this - Java and C# folks have programming jobs with non-programming hobbies, while Python and Ruby have non-programming jobs, with programming hobbies.
Subsidies are there to actually make these cars (well not the Volt but e.g. Civic Hybrid) affordable to even to the lower middle class.
That may be the "pay-no-attention-to-the-economist-behind-the-curtain" explanation of this particular government control, but I think even an honest neo-Marxist must admit that most of these cars will be purchased using debt (loans), and government encouraging people into debt is simply the prescription for yet further financial turmoil.
Maybe if you hadn't bought that shiny new Explorer as soon as gas dropped below $4, you'd be able to take advantage of the incentives yourself.
And maybe if you don't do whatever it is you are about to do, you won't miss out on whatever the government suddenly does right after that.
The Big Picture includes things like smog, efficiency of environmental controls, the location of emissions, and a host of other factors that "coal-powered car" demonstrates profound ignorance of.
Add this to your "big picture": the cost of energy and who can afford it, the ability of inventors and entrepreneurs to bring energy innovations to market unencumbered by regulation-wielding, special-interest worshipping bureaucrats.