Honestly, no. What DOES sound stupid to me is using "u" in place of "you" in an intelligent, adult conversation and expecting to be taken seriously. oh i forgot... how u doin?.. or maybe u prefer "heil grammar"?
anyway, pls send me a notice when u got somethin to say besides "nay, nay" and the letters of the alphabet.. and btw, judgin by the/. ID-s, u should start your replies with "Dear Sir".
Now, what if this short-sightedness is simply the result of the unpredictabilities, uncertainties, and insecurities generated by government intervention. it is quite amazing how u americans blame "the government" for all that is wrong in the world... and none of u seems to admit that HE VOTED FOR that government... a democratically elected government is nothing more that a mirror image of the society, of the ppl that elected them.
even more, that is valid for any form of government, not only for elected or democratic ones.
there is an old saying that tells u: "every people has the rulers it deserves"... and if the government sucks, it simply means that YOU SUCK.
Has anything besides the Tempurpedic Sleep System (certified by the Space Foundation!) come out of these billions of dollars of people's money? the fact that u cant already see the results in your backyard, doesnt make the research worthless... and even if that "sleep system" is the only result, better sleep for all ppl is prolly worth trillions.
pretty well balanced and written.. but u got a few strange "gems" in there
I believe that the scientific method is the most useful tool we have for accurately discerning various facts about the world. Science as a whole is extremely valuable and useful. But its domain isn't politics and it never should be.
basically u say "here, this is the best tool we have but we shouldnt use it to make the most important decisions that influence our lives"... doesnt that sound stupid to u?
and if scientists and the scientific method shouldnt be involved in politics than who should be? politicians like monkey-boy-georgie and their evangelical "methods"?
There was a time in the late 90s and early 00s when Scientific American was much more aggressively political than it is now. One issue in particular that I remember was all about how incredibly evil land mines are, complete with detailed pictures of the results. And it blamed and shamed the US for the problem, completely ignoring the despots, tyrants and military actions that put the land mines there in the first place.
those land mines had a few interesting letters on them... like "made in US"... or maybe u think that there is no problem with selling weapons to a known tyrant or criminal !? afaik, that is a crime even in a guns-for-all culture like the US.
There's no rational way to disprove an irrational belief. oh yes there is... we aren't exactly born as rational beings, i would say the opposite is true... rationality is gained through education and quite a big part of the education process is teaching ppl to rationally deal with irrational fear, belief, etc... education is supposed to disprove irrationality by showing ppl that rational behaviour is better for them.
admitedly, that is not a way to *disprove* irrationality, but more of a way to *combat* it... and it doesnt always work... but then, what is perfect?
Sounds like you've read "The Jungle" a few times? nope... just some history, both written and oral (one of my gran-granpas was there)... but thx for the recommendation, i'll take a look.
lol try telling unions that. they'll spout all kinds of bullshit about how you "owe" them for your current conditions and how they are fighting to preserve them. in my experience unions are only there to protect useless wastes of space and create pointless busy jobs with no value. quick fact-check for u... lets say u are a simple employee:
1. year ~1900 : u have maximum 1-2 holidays/year (usually not paid), u work 6days/week with no hour-cap (usually 12-14h/day), u have no paid sick-days (actually, u r usually fired if u get sick), u have no health insurance, u have no pension, u have no unemployment money, there are almost no norms related to work conditions, accidents, etc...
2. year 2008 : u have minimum 12 holidays/year (over 20 in europe), u work 5days and 40h/week, u have a few weeks paid sick-days, u work in a (relatively) healthy and secure environment, u have health insurance (at least u can have it), pension, unemployment money, job protection, etc.
quite a difference i would say... and u seem to think that all those things fell from the sky directly into your purse.
well, news for you, whether u like it or not, all those things are there for you because of the Unions.. and btw, people DIED for you to have those things.. many.. ppl.. DIED.
So you deny the doctrine of the Trinity then; that the Holy Spirit, Jesus and God are in fact the same being? If you do not deny this then you must admit that at lease some of the Bible is just quotations from God. noone needs to deny that... if u have some brain you just dont care about it... exactly like you dont need to care about every stupidity said by some random idiot.
....Science will rise again exactly the same. But no religion will......
I'm not so sure about that. Religion seems to be built into most humans. i guess u missed the meaning of that quote.. it doesnt say religion will not raise again, it only says TheSameReligion will not raise again.
Would the mysteries of the cosmos or DNA be any less challenging if evolution at no point entered in? nice that u mentioned DNA... that was one of the predictions made by the theory of evolution... ppl started lookin for it precisely because evolution predicted it.
a theory from 1700 predicted something that could only be discovered with the technology from 1900... aint that something?
anyway, before criticizing evolution, how about u study it?
Why can't we teach science how it works TODAY without getting into arguments how things came to be the way they are. Maybe we can divorce speculations about origins and the past and concentrate on figuring out how things work today, regardless how one or other group thinks they came to be that way? Let those who wish to argue the merits of evolution or ID get together outside of the science classroom and move over to the philosophy department. How about a law that mandates the separation of science and evolution, similar to the separation of church and state.
oops... looks like u actually have no idea what science and the scientific method are.. pls stop posting about stuff u dont understand.. thx
why does the assistant professor get the patent? why wouldnt he? it was His Brain that created all that stuff and He did most of the work.
or maybe u forgot that a patent is supposed to be a CreativeIdea, something that just doesnt come out of a bunch of money and devices.
I would say he was employed by Stanford. So Stanford should receive the patent. why so? that Stanford "thing" did any work? had any creative ideas?
If his research-money was provided by a public institution (some sort of grant), then either the research should be public (patent-free), or the patent should be somehow associated to the country. fair enough... we help you, you help us.. but that works only between People!
I don't see why he gets to profit from the discovery. (After all he was payed to do that. It would have been bad, if he hadn't found anything.) true thing u say.. but how about the reverse?... it was that particular Person that created the whole stuff, not the money, not the instruments in Stanford's lab... Stanford could have payed 1000x as much to someone else and get nothing... or keep their money and labs in a safe forever and also get nothing... therefore, they should get exactly that: nothing!.. same as true, isnt it?
the best solution is prolly a patent shared between the company and the person(s) that created it... with the person(s) as patent Owner and the company(s) as a sort of "supporter" who only gets a share of the revenues but has no other right... the company put some money in and gets some money out and that's all.. isnt this the most fair solution?
plus.. no company can be Owner of a patent because patents are developed by people and they are developed with Brains, not with money... and a company has no brains whatsoever.
sorry, but looks to me that you dont even preach it !
and allow me to say it again... with "preachers" like u, FOSS does not need enemies.
Not everyone who believes in FOSS advocates specific FOSS projects in every circumstance. If I thought MPEG was far better than Theora, then I wouldn't argue for Theora, regardless of its FOSS status. "FOSS always, right or wrong" helps FOSS projects stagnate.
100% agree, "FOSS always, right or wrong" is not a good way .
but my point was that there is nothing that wrong with Theora.. it may not be the best technical solution at this time, but the diffs are not as great as some wish us to believe... Theora is still a new-generation and quite solid codec.
and in the end, there is plenty of room and time for improvement (afaik, that HTML standard is not supposed to be finished tomorrow but in a year or even more)
No, but the ones who type like they're texting are a safe bet.
i actually dont like cellphones and write an SMS per month, if that.
may be that the writing style developed so from all the IRC i did some years ago... dont know.. but i like it so.
so.. sorry.. you kind of lost the "safe bet", too.
but hopefully you got at least a bit of the point i was trying to make... when in a fight, you dont leave or bash your side because the other party has better/nicer weapons... you stand your ground and fight with whatever you got!
and the open-software, open-culture fight may well be the most important fight for this generation .
Listen, kid, I've probably been using and writing FOSS since before you were born.
not everyone with a bigger userID is your kid... if this kind of "paternal arrogance" is your only argument, i guess i was truly "barking" at the wrong tree... but anyway, if you enjoy it so, you can take my post as a msg from a boy to his granpa... be my guest.
My name's in NetBSD's source tree and the OpenBSD donations page, and I've argued pro-freedom on Slashdot more times than you've posted total. You're barking up the wrong tree on this one so give it up. no i am not... i answered to your post BECAUSE of the things u mentioned above and after checking your/. history... i find it truly amazing that a guy like u can be so easily fooled by this crap about Theora's "problems".
And yet I still don't think that Theora's inherently better than newer codecs for all the reasons I mentioned, including freedom. You can spend your time futilely attacking me or you can read what I wrote and see why not everyone agrees with you.
noone said Theora is technically better or the best... but it surely is GoodEnough!
and, as i said a few times already, i find it simply amazing that a guy like you chose to promote the 3 extra frames and 2 more pixels offered by mpeg-4... that shows u dont want open-software, you just want a few extra features and nicer pics like all the MS fanboys that you sometimes bash.
Posted from Konqueror on Kubuntu/Gutsy. I practice what I preach.
sorry, but looks to me that you dont even preach it !
and allow me to say it again... with "preachers" like u, FOSS does not need enemies.
reeaaaally !?
you speak against FOSS, based on some technical deficiencies which arent even that big... you are not ready to sacrifice the smallest thing for the open software ideal of FOSS... and while you so easily *sell* your creed, closed-source promoters have no scruples following theirs.
may i ask which part of "freedom comes first" you dont get? with "supporters" like you, FOSS does not need enemies.
that sounds like a good idea until u hear/read what the average american thinks nowadays... then u realize that they'll put an even worst government and president there... or even start a sort of christian-caliphate, ran by some nutcase preacher.
You know the alternative is to stop them with guns on the ground like our grandfathers did, right? that is only an temporary solution in case of emergency... guns may kill ppl but they do not stop ppl... they'll keep coming and coming until u change something in their bricked brains.
i dont mind taking a gun to defend my rights, but i do think violence is quite a waste of time and resources.
P.S. u seem to assume i am canadian too... i have a lot of friends there and i like the country but right now my passport says i should call myself european (whatever that means nowadays).
Marching to Washington and hanging your entire government would be a great start, and a show of good faith to the rest of the world. that sounds like a good idea until u hear/read what the average american thinks nowadays... then u realize that they'll put an even worst government and president there... or even start a sort of christian-caliphate, ran by some nutcase preacher.
Democracy will either develop over time from the inside out or it will not develop at all. Mod parent up. It's the most insightfull thing I read this year.
GP fully deserves the mode-up for the insightful post. But the particular piece you quoted is not 100% true.
It can be done, you dont have to wait for it to develop. How? Simple :
1. take all youths under age XX (before they are affected by the religious/tribe mentality)
2. for YY years, educate them according to democratic principles (freedom, equal rights, etc)
3. democracy!
i would say XX should be around 5 and YY should be around 10.
of course, that only answers the "is it possible" question! whether doing so is desirable or feasible or a good thing to do...dont know, those are different questions.
in the communist societies science was not supposed to enrich the scientists or some bunch of bankers and investors, it was supposed to advance the human kind... and that is exactly what science is for.
the communists did a lot of bad stuff but noone can accuse them for lack of grand scale and long term vision.
plus, long term thinking is one of the last things to expect from a retard in cowboy boots and a bunch of greedy pigs.
So if I get this straight, in Germany if Company A offers me $X dollars for my product, and Company B offers me $X+5, and I decide to do business only with Company B because I don't like Company A's deal, Company A can then sue me for anti-competitive practices? Sounds like I don't want to do business there...
Reid just got off the phone with the german embassy... they dont NEED u there either.
they dont WANT u there, too... and it is not because they are not nice and welcoming ppl... actually they would very much like to have you, but they already have enough market-is-god lunatics to educate and just cant take more for this year... please try next year.
Or maybe other countries are in favor of giving consumer choices? Or is that anti-capitalist? If that was the purpose it would have been a consumer org starting the court action, not a rival telco. or maybe, in germany the market itself works in the consumer's interest like it was supposed to... and they dont even need consumer orgs because they have real competition... i tell you, it is the horror !
Hey, cool, Lubos doesn't like me either! I must be a genius:-) thx for the link, interesting stuff..
and wow, someone gotta put a least on that Lubos guy... i am not a physicist and have no idea how he measures as one, but the guy fails the "human being" test miserably... he is so full of himself and his stuff, i doubt he can see anything else around... as an outsider i have a hard time understanding why would anyone in the physics world listen to such a maddog.. but then, what do i know ?:)
in fact my problem with his type is that i actually like the string theory, i am a sucker for anything along the "it's all energy" line... but seeing how this guy "supports" it, makes me doubt the whole thing.. with such "advocates" the string theory does not need any enemies.
as about your paper... sounds interesting.. as a technical obs - you seem to be convinced that "the ecuation" exists.. there is a good chance it does not, but everyone seems to neglect that chance... also it is funny to see all those ppl around, makin theories of everything.. we humans dont even know very well how our brains and bodies work, but are cheeky enough to pretend we can explain "the universe and everything"... we also invent all sorts of supreme beings that have nothin better to do than care about our every step because we think we are that important... i find all that sooo cute:)
cant say much more because i neither know nor have the time to re-read enough math to understand your paper... but if u wanna draw more attention maybe u should work your tone a bit, put more optimism in there, open a bigger window and make it more visible... ppl like that... and even physicists like their stuff wrapped in nice paper with cute ribbons;)
Damn, now I'm going to spend the night reading Wikipedia again! And I was just about to go to bed. that is by far the geekiest/. msg in quite a while... my geek core shuddered when i read.
too bad i have no modpoints today.
are you sure you are not a troll ?! cause u awfully sound like a huge one!
Pretty sure. I've been involved in network operations for 15+ years. I used to run a Fido BBS, back before the the days of the commercial Internet. I used to work for a small ISP and DSL CLEC reseller. I still participate in the ISP-Planet and NANOG lists. I'm presently the IT Manager for a small manufacturing company (~120 employees, ~70 computers, two Internet connections, and OpenVPN-based remote access).
How about you, since you bring it up? How are you qualified to comment on network operations?
very nice credentials, congrats... but this is not a "mine is bigger than yours" contest... just for your info i am coming from the software side of IT, business software mostly.
anyway technical netw competence is irrelevant to this issue... net neutrality is not a technical issue, it is more of a basic rights issue... since you seem to be an american, maybe it will help to think about net-neutrality as a "all infos are free and equal" act... throw in "and for everyone" and you got it;).
oh and btw, when you think about a law/regulation for everyone, try and look at it from everyone's perspective.. if a rule is good for you as isp or net-admin or business, or etc, it does not mean it is good for the whole system.... and despite what you may have been told "good for business" != Good
you are an isp? very good, i pay 5$ and you give me 5mbs/sec... and That Is All.
5 Mbit/sec *to where*? How about I give you 5 Mbit/sec for $5/month? Sound like a good deal? Okay, what if that 5MB/sec is to a DSLAM with only a 56 Kbit/sec frame line for it's connectivity to my core router? Or what if it has a 5 MBit/sec link to my core, but there are 5000 other subscribers on it, too? You seem to think the Internet exists only as the subscriber loop.
hm, do you have a tendency to uselessly complicate things? cause otherwise the above is pure trolling.
my sample was very clear and i am sure you dont need explanations... you are only trying to derail the argument on a very technical path that has nothing to do with the initial point... another troll sign.
are you sure you are not a troll ?! cause u awfully sound like a huge one!
I sympathize with where you're coming from -- that the Internet should be this utopia, where access and information are free, and everyone is equal, and censorship is interpreted as damage, and so on. But we don't live in that world. Infrastructure is freaking expensive. Somebody's got to pay for it. Somebody always has, too. the street network is a huge infrastructure, someone pays for it... and guess what, it is neutral, the lanes are the same for everyone.
the electricity network is also a huge and hugely expensive infrastructure, someone pay for it an it is also neutral, you dont get "sparky-electrons" if you pay more... and if more electricity is needed, you just get a bigger cable.
and the above samples are not because i like "the analogy game", but to show how wrong and useless as a proof it is!... may i ask where is your point, mister TROLL ?!
Back in the bad old days, Internet access was rare. You generally had to be associated with a university or other think-tank, and commercial use was prohibited. This is not a new idea. back in the old days electricity was rare, you had to be edison or tesla to access it.. SOOOO?
do you have a point or you just enjoy trolling ad infinitum !?
We can also turn the money argument around. If I can afford it, why *shouldn't* I be able to pay extra to have my packets delivered first? just buy a bigger cable/more bandwidth if you want it faster... who stops you from doing that, TROLL ?!
Shall we outlaw FedEx, since it means big business can afford to have their mail delivered sooner? wooow, this must be the most helpful analogy... Internet and FedEx.. is this a replay of the senatorial "the net is a series of trucks" ? are you Fokking Kidding Us !?!?!?
The situation isn't as cut-and-dry as the propaganda would like us to believe. oh yes it is very clear... and it will be even more clear if trolls like you would stop throwing dust.
as a conclusion.
you are an isp? very good, i pay 5$ and you give me 5mbs/sec... and That Is All.
as about what i do with that bandwidth, fokk off, that is Not Your Business !!!... if i like to just stick your cable up my neighbour's arse and watch her/him jumping the whole day, i need neither your help nor your permission.
mmmkaaay mister TROOOOOLL !?
first of all, i am neither a network specialist nor a business one nor a consumer rights/legislation one... the below post is just a point of view, pls feel free to correct it.
there is something wrong with your scenario, just on a much deeper level than you think... the part that you described as problematic is actually 100% ok... what you dont seem to understand is that a business Only has a right to Compete, it has no right to Win or even to Survive!
concrete for your situation...
you are not allowed to "tax" xyztube just because you cant keep your business otherwise... if you cannot handle the traffic to xyztube and you cannot convince your clients to pay more => your business fails... and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, someone else will do it (hopefully better).
as about what net neutrality is, i think that is pretty simple and i do not agree with the confusion you mentioned (actually, i think there is a good chance you are trolling about that).
what exactly is so hard to understand? the word "neutrality"?... the subject of that "neutrality"?
anyway, lets try a very simple definition: "the bandwidth cannot be altered depending on the content".
more precisely:
no content-source discrimination... you are not allowed to "squeeze" my data in order to push yours.
no content-type blockage... you are not allowed to block any legitimate protocol or content-type (although there may be some dispute as to what "legitimate" means).
content-type discrimination is allowed but it should be the same for everyone (think QoS)... e.g. you are allowed to push VOIP content over HTML content but you should do the same for every voip provider, not only for the ones you "like"...(and btw, i do not fully agree with this one)
is that clear enough?
as about WHY is that needed.. simple, to create fair competition.
otherwise the internet is a jungle and an isp that does not respect net-neutrality is a mafia racket that decides who can do what with the network .
imagine you are a "street-isp", your clients all live in a neighborhood and the streets are the network you admin... a non-neutral isp is the neighborhood mafia that does not allow ppl to enter that neighborhood unless they pay!... the good old "wanna sell milk in this neighb? fuck you, pay me!"
of course you have the very slippery slope of security... the isp can pretend they block or filter stuff because that is what their customers want... but that does not mean the customers truly want that.. and even if they want it, that only means they are retarded or just uninformed... like those shit-scared ppl that live in gated communities thinking that they are safe and free because they pay the gate-ppl to protect them... when in fact they just built a cage for themselves and gave the keys to someone else.
if you were not trolling with the above msg, i think you should re-think your scenario... as the old saying goes - you should be very careful what you wish, it may become true.
Slashdot Mirror
Honestly, no. What DOES sound stupid to me is using "u" in place of "you" in an intelligent, adult conversation and expecting to be taken seriously. oh i forgot
anyway, pls send me a notice when u got somethin to say besides "nay, nay" and the letters of the alphabet
even more, that is valid for any form of government, not only for elected or democratic ones.
there is an old saying that tells u: "every people has the rulers it deserves"
I believe that the scientific method is the most useful tool we have for accurately discerning various facts about the world. Science as a whole is extremely valuable and useful. But its domain isn't politics and it never should be.
basically u say "here, this is the best tool we have but we shouldnt use it to make the most important decisions that influence our lives"and if scientists and the scientific method shouldnt be involved in politics than who should be? politicians like monkey-boy-georgie and their evangelical "methods"?
There was a time in the late 90s and early 00s when Scientific American was much more aggressively political than it is now. One issue in particular that I remember was all about how incredibly evil land mines are, complete with detailed pictures of the results. And it blamed and shamed the US for the problem, completely ignoring the despots, tyrants and military actions that put the land mines there in the first place.
those land mines had a few interesting letters on themadmitedly, that is not a way to *disprove* irrationality, but more of a way to *combat* it
1. year ~1900 : u have maximum 1-2 holidays/year (usually not paid), u work 6days/week with no hour-cap (usually 12-14h/day), u have no paid sick-days (actually, u r usually fired if u get sick), u have no health insurance, u have no pension, u have no unemployment money, there are almost no norms related to work conditions, accidents, etc...
2. year 2008 : u have minimum 12 holidays/year (over 20 in europe), u work 5days and 40h/week, u have a few weeks paid sick-days, u work in a (relatively) healthy and secure environment, u have health insurance (at least u can have it), pension, unemployment money, job protection, etc.
quite a difference i would say
well, news for you, whether u like it or not, all those things are there for you because of the Unions
....Science will rise again exactly the same. But no religion will......I'm not so sure about that. Religion seems to be built into most humans.
i guess u missed the meaning of that quote
a theory from 1700 predicted something that could only be discovered with the technology from 1900... aint that something?
anyway, before criticizing evolution, how about u study it? Why can't we teach science how it works TODAY without getting into arguments how things came to be the way they are. Maybe we can divorce speculations about origins and the past and concentrate on figuring out how things work today, regardless how one or other group thinks they came to be that way? Let those who wish to argue the merits of evolution or ID get together outside of the science classroom and move over to the philosophy department. How about a law that mandates the separation of science and evolution, similar to the separation of church and state.
oops
why wouldnt he? it was His Brain that created all that stuff and He did most of the work.
or maybe u forgot that a patent is supposed to be a CreativeIdea, something that just doesnt come out of a bunch of money and devices. I would say he was employed by Stanford. So Stanford should receive the patent. why so? that Stanford "thing" did any work? had any creative ideas? If his research-money was provided by a public institution (some sort of grant), then either the research should be public (patent-free), or the patent should be somehow associated to the country.
fair enough
the best solution is prolly a patent shared between the company and the person(s) that created it
plus
Not everyone who believes in FOSS advocates specific FOSS projects in every circumstance. If I thought MPEG was far better than Theora, then I wouldn't argue for Theora, regardless of its FOSS status. "FOSS always, right or wrong" helps FOSS projects stagnate.
100% agree, "FOSS always, right or wrong" is not a good way .but my point was that there is nothing that wrong with Theora
and in the end, there is plenty of room and time for improvement (afaik, that HTML standard is not supposed to be finished tomorrow but in a year or even more)
No, but the ones who type like they're texting are a safe bet.
i actually dont like cellphones and write an SMS per month, if that.may be that the writing style developed so from all the IRC i did some years ago... dont know
so
but hopefully you got at least a bit of the point i was trying to make
and the open-software, open-culture fight may well be the most important fight for this generation .
Listen, kid, I've probably been using and writing FOSS since before you were born.
not everyone with a bigger userID is your kidAnd yet I still don't think that Theora's inherently better than newer codecs for all the reasons I mentioned, including freedom. You can spend your time futilely attacking me or you can read what I wrote and see why not everyone agrees with you.
noone said Theora is technically better or the bestand, as i said a few times already, i find it simply amazing that a guy like you chose to promote the 3 extra frames and 2 more pixels offered by mpeg-4
Posted from Konqueror on Kubuntu/Gutsy. I practice what I preach.
sorry, but looks to me that you dont even preach it !and allow me to say it again
I'm a huge FOSS buff
reeaaaally !?you speak against FOSS, based on some technical deficiencies which arent even that big
may i ask which part of "freedom comes first" you dont get? with "supporters" like you, FOSS does not need enemies.
You know the alternative is to stop them with guns on the ground like our grandfathers did, right? that is only an temporary solution in case of emergency
i dont mind taking a gun to defend my rights, but i do think violence is quite a waste of time and resources.
P.S. u seem to assume i am canadian too ... i have a lot of friends there and i like the country but right now my passport says i should call myself european (whatever that means nowadays).
GP fully deserves the mode-up for the insightful post. But the particular piece you quoted is not 100% true.
It can be done, you dont have to wait for it to develop. How? Simple :
1. take all youths under age XX (before they are affected by the religious/tribe mentality)
2. for YY years, educate them according to democratic principles (freedom, equal rights, etc)
3. democracy!
i would say XX should be around 5 and YY should be around 10.
of course, that only answers the "is it possible" question! whether doing so is desirable or feasible or a good thing to do...dont know, those are different questions.
in the communist societies science was not supposed to enrich the scientists or some bunch of bankers and investors, it was supposed to advance the human kind... and that is exactly what science is for.
the communists did a lot of bad stuff but noone can accuse them for lack of grand scale and long term vision.
plus, long term thinking is one of the last things to expect from a retard in cowboy boots and a bunch of greedy pigs.
Reid just got off the phone with the german embassy
they dont WANT u there, too
or maybe, in germany the market itself works in the consumer's interest like it was supposed to
and wow, someone gotta put a least on that Lubos guy
in fact my problem with his type is that i actually like the string theory, i am a sucker for anything along the "it's all energy" line
as about your paper
cant say much more because i neither know nor have the time to re-read enough math to understand your paper
good luck.
too bad i have no modpoints today.
Pretty sure. I've been involved in network operations for 15+ years. I used to run a Fido BBS, back before the the days of the commercial Internet. I used to work for a small ISP and DSL CLEC reseller. I still participate in the ISP-Planet and NANOG lists. I'm presently the IT Manager for a small manufacturing company (~120 employees, ~70 computers, two Internet connections, and OpenVPN-based remote access).
How about you, since you bring it up? How are you qualified to comment on network operations?
very nice credentials, congratsanyway technical netw competence is irrelevant to this issue
oh and btw, when you think about a law/regulation for everyone, try and look at it from everyone's perspective
5 Mbit/sec *to where*? How about I give you 5 Mbit/sec for $5/month? Sound like a good deal? Okay, what if that 5MB/sec is to a DSLAM with only a 56 Kbit/sec frame line for it's connectivity to my core router? Or what if it has a 5 MBit/sec link to my core, but there are 5000 other subscribers on it, too? You seem to think the Internet exists only as the subscriber loop.
hm, do you have a tendency to uselessly complicate things? cause otherwise the above is pure trolling.
my sample was very clear and i am sure you dont need explanations
the street network is a huge infrastructure, someone pays for it
the electricity network is also a huge and hugely expensive infrastructure, someone pay for it an it is also neutral, you dont get "sparky-electrons" if you pay more
and the above samples are not because i like "the analogy game", but to show how wrong and useless as a proof it is!
back in the old days electricity was rare, you had to be edison or tesla to access it
do you have a point or you just enjoy trolling ad infinitum !? We can also turn the money argument around. If I can afford it, why *shouldn't* I be able to pay extra to have my packets delivered first? just buy a bigger cable/more bandwidth if you want it faster
wooow, this must be the most helpful analogy
The situation isn't as cut-and-dry as the propaganda would like us to believe.
oh yes it is very clear
as a conclusion.
you are an isp? very good, i pay 5$ and you give me 5mbs/sec
as about what i do with that bandwidth, fokk off, that is Not Your Business !!!
mmmkaaay mister TROOOOOLL !?
first of all, i am neither a network specialist nor a business one nor a consumer rights/legislation one
there is something wrong with your scenario, just on a much deeper level than you think... the part that you described as problematic is actually 100% ok... what you dont seem to understand is that a business Only has a right to Compete, it has no right to Win or even to Survive!
concrete for your situation...
you are not allowed to "tax" xyztube just because you cant keep your business otherwise... if you cannot handle the traffic to xyztube and you cannot convince your clients to pay more => your business fails
as about what net neutrality is, i think that is pretty simple and i do not agree with the confusion you mentioned (actually, i think there is a good chance you are trolling about that).
what exactly is so hard to understand? the word "neutrality"?
anyway, lets try a very simple definition: "the bandwidth cannot be altered depending on the content".
more precisely:
is that clear enough?
as about WHY is that needed
otherwise the internet is a jungle and an isp that does not respect net-neutrality is a mafia racket that decides who can do what with the network .
imagine you are a "street-isp", your clients all live in a neighborhood and the streets are the network you admin
of course you have the very slippery slope of security
if you were not trolling with the above msg, i think you should re-think your scenario