Forgive me for not reading your post carefully enough the first time.
How much of our lines were laid by subsidy? Do you know? I happen to know, by following the yearly conference calls, that huge amounts of profit are rolled into the network.
But I apparently I lack the deep understanding you have of our company, as evidenced by my naive view that we aren't OUT TO GET YOU. I'm sure the boys at the top have me all nice and brainwashed. How dare I believe they don't spend their every waking minute trying to make the internet unnavigable and useless. Because, you know, that's how fortunes are made.
I guess, since most products are "bought and paid for by taxpayers", that the government should bring its gun-hand to bear on all industry.
I'm sure you didn't mean to say that our network was built with tax money, since it wasn't. It was built via this evil mechanism we call "profits", which is what you get when you produce something that people find value in.
Also, that's an interesting political theory you have there, that when a company offers shares to the public, the government should be granted de facto control of that company. If it's your intention to destroy stock markets, enshrining your opinion into law would certainly make that happen.
Well, I'm sure we'll all be fighting for that kind of specificity in the legislation, rather than vague talk of "tiers" that can be interpreted to mean almost anything, depending on the whim of the bureaucrat. Because, you know, there's nothing a legislator loves more than a vaguely written law that gives him vast powers over productive human beings.
From my perspective as a techie at Time Warner, I can tell you that your perspective is backwards. We do not slow down packets from Skype or Vonage. To us, those packets appear the same as any other internet traffic. We make no effort to distinguish one type of internet traffic from another.
However, we have found when rolling out our own VoiP service, that voice packets need to have priority in order to avoid breakup on the line. So we prioritize voice traffic from our own voice modems.
I suppose, given the tenets of "net neutrality" (which are oddly similar to "fascism": government control of nominally privately owned business) that it is wrong for us to provide this priority to our voice packets. Even if we could determine which packets are vonage and skype, it wouldn't be "neutral" of us to "tier" the internet in favor of voice packets over other kinds of packets. So the end result is that net neutrality will kill voip phone service, as use of the internet continues to expand and breakup becomes more prevalent amid the flow of youtube and warez downloads.
So keep plugging away, comrades, one day we will overthrow these evil bourgeouisie who are so busy keeping us all down!
I work at Time Warner, and we place similar restrictions on static IPs. This is not done from greed, but rather from the restrictions placed upon us and the difficulties involved in getting new IP space. We need to make it prohibitive, because we have to justify every static that we give out to the IANA. Blame them.
A large majority say its not ready for release, eh? What polling agency gave you that data? Oh wait... it was whiners in the beta boards? I see...
The ALA continues to strip meaning from words
on
Top Banned Books of 2003
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
In meaningful terms, a banned book is one which the government forcibly prevents from being published or distributed. Like when Cuba jails librarians who distribute books unsympathetic to the regime (you won't hear from the ALA on that score).
To choose not to carry a book in your library is not equivalent to banning it. To have a policy of what books to carry and what not to in public libraries is fine too, and quite necessary (until the day when they can carry EVERY book). But to tell people that they can under no circumstances publish or distribute a book is evil, and happens far too often all over the world.
So your kids school library doesn't carry Goosebumps. Cry me a river. Have you ever read Goosebumps? It presents children with a malevolent world in which evil always triumphs, and the best you can hope for is to escape it unkilled.
If the ALA wants a cause, it ought to look into John Kerry trying to force the Swiftboat Vets to stop publishing their book.
Slashdot Mirror
Forgive me for not reading your post carefully enough the first time. How much of our lines were laid by subsidy? Do you know? I happen to know, by following the yearly conference calls, that huge amounts of profit are rolled into the network. But I apparently I lack the deep understanding you have of our company, as evidenced by my naive view that we aren't OUT TO GET YOU. I'm sure the boys at the top have me all nice and brainwashed. How dare I believe they don't spend their every waking minute trying to make the internet unnavigable and useless. Because, you know, that's how fortunes are made.
I guess, since most products are "bought and paid for by taxpayers", that the government should bring its gun-hand to bear on all industry. I'm sure you didn't mean to say that our network was built with tax money, since it wasn't. It was built via this evil mechanism we call "profits", which is what you get when you produce something that people find value in. Also, that's an interesting political theory you have there, that when a company offers shares to the public, the government should be granted de facto control of that company. If it's your intention to destroy stock markets, enshrining your opinion into law would certainly make that happen.
Well, I'm sure we'll all be fighting for that kind of specificity in the legislation, rather than vague talk of "tiers" that can be interpreted to mean almost anything, depending on the whim of the bureaucrat. Because, you know, there's nothing a legislator loves more than a vaguely written law that gives him vast powers over productive human beings.
From my perspective as a techie at Time Warner, I can tell you that your perspective is backwards. We do not slow down packets from Skype or Vonage. To us, those packets appear the same as any other internet traffic. We make no effort to distinguish one type of internet traffic from another. However, we have found when rolling out our own VoiP service, that voice packets need to have priority in order to avoid breakup on the line. So we prioritize voice traffic from our own voice modems. I suppose, given the tenets of "net neutrality" (which are oddly similar to "fascism": government control of nominally privately owned business) that it is wrong for us to provide this priority to our voice packets. Even if we could determine which packets are vonage and skype, it wouldn't be "neutral" of us to "tier" the internet in favor of voice packets over other kinds of packets. So the end result is that net neutrality will kill voip phone service, as use of the internet continues to expand and breakup becomes more prevalent amid the flow of youtube and warez downloads. So keep plugging away, comrades, one day we will overthrow these evil bourgeouisie who are so busy keeping us all down!
I work at Time Warner, and we place similar restrictions on static IPs. This is not done from greed, but rather from the restrictions placed upon us and the difficulties involved in getting new IP space. We need to make it prohibitive, because we have to justify every static that we give out to the IANA. Blame them.
A large majority say its not ready for release, eh? What polling agency gave you that data? Oh wait ... it was whiners in the beta boards? I see...
In meaningful terms, a banned book is one which the government forcibly prevents from being published or distributed. Like when Cuba jails librarians who distribute books unsympathetic to the regime (you won't hear from the ALA on that score).
To choose not to carry a book in your library is not equivalent to banning it. To have a policy of what books to carry and what not to in public libraries is fine too, and quite necessary (until the day when they can carry EVERY book). But to tell people that they can under no circumstances publish or distribute a book is evil, and happens far too often all over the world.
So your kids school library doesn't carry Goosebumps. Cry me a river. Have you ever read Goosebumps? It presents children with a malevolent world in which evil always triumphs, and the best you can hope for is to escape it unkilled.
If the ALA wants a cause, it ought to look into John Kerry trying to force the Swiftboat Vets to stop publishing their book.