... when it was introduced in 2015? When the regulators sat down in that meeting they must have acted in response to a specific trouble caused by lack of net neutrality prior to that. What was that trouble? I am genuinely interested.
Comcast throttling Netflix and Bittorrent, the former had to pay up to setup CDN's on Comcast's networks to avoid throttling. Someone didn't wanna pay their peering for all those bits coming from Netflix. Just one example of why NN got enacted. I could go on.. Verizon blocking Facetime? The current fuckery with mobile providers dishing out 'no cap streaming' 'deals' to favor their affiliates.
But, don't worry. NN is dead, it has been dead since Ajit Pai was installed as chairman. They haven't been enforcing NN at all anyway, so yeah.. except now the ISP's will have a completely free hand to do all the fuckery they desire.
but every time I research the raw data it becomes very clear these aren't all that smart of AIs. In fact, the term AI is very misleading. They're more like smart scripts.;-)
I think it's more along the lines of: OOOOH we made something can do ONE of multitude of things the human brain can do, and therefore it's intelligent.
Poppycock. Y'all got a really impressive image recognition system there, but you know, just being able to tell what something is by looking at is a very very minuscule piece of what human intelligence is.
Now if they can expand this into other areas of human intelligence, and make it all come together to form some sort of 'awareness,' yeah, I dunno, they got a long way to go. A very long way.
This is image recognition + genetic algorithms, though given Google is a marketing company and not a computer company it makes sense they would market that as AI. Too bad they fired all the competent developers.
I gotta agree. This isn't too far from a Bayesian classifier. Just souped up with neutal networks. And it's really no surprise that as we make better tools, we can use those better tools to make even better tools. Kinda the history of everything.
But to say this is 'Intelligent' is pretty silly. It's a souped up classifier that was built with a souped up classifier training it. Big deal.
... is that once all you have are robots fighting other robots, there is no loss of life and so no reason for one side to surrender.
Such a war could well last until the end of time.
Such a war would lack the horrors of war. Which is the problem of course. Wars need loss of life, horrific atrocities and anything else terrible to encourages both sides to negotiate. Robot wars would be pretty boring, they wouldn't last until the end of time either. People would realize they're not getting anywhere with just robots and start putting humans back in harms way to tip the balance back in their favor, then the other side does the same. Then we get the horrors of war, which will mean it will end eventually.
Be better of course to just do away with war entirely. Hopeful!
Gotta agree with Pai on this. Social media is a mixed bag, and probably a lot more bad than good.
I don't use any social media (unless/. counts?), I just watch videos and use old school MUD games and other gaming. I think Facebook and Twitter are stupid and a monumental waste of time. As a gamer, for me to say something is a waste of time.. it's gotta be pretty inane and worthless.
Sadly, at the same time, I'm observant enough to realize a lot of your average John Doe's actually think Facebook *IS* the Internet. Kinda feel sorry for them, it's soooooo much more.
Nothing quite like trying to load a game off cassette tape, trying to get the volume just right so the computer will read it properly. Trying again and again, with different audio gear to try to read the frickin tape. Yeah, good times.
Imagine giving equal time to opposing view points on something like the Huffington Post. Or some climate change news website. Do you want a climate research website have an equally sized section by law dedicated to "climate deniers"? The site doesn't want that, the patrons of the site don't want that, and the gesture wont bring in any new people either.
I was referring to Fairness Doctrine related to radio, not websites. It doesn't even make sense for websites.
But I dunno, maybe it really does need to come back, for radio, cuz as a result of it getting repealed, we got left-leaning NPR and everything else is right-wing loudmouths whipping their listeners into an angry frenzy of distrust and hatred of...everything! Doesn't really seem like a good result.
I'm not closed minded, I do occasionally tune into the right-wing bullshit, just to hear the other side, and it's just so much nonsense and anger, and trying to make me feel angry too. Not really a good experience. But I guess the right likes to be angry and pissed off all the time, no wonder they're so unpleasant. I would be too if I was whipped into a frenzy of anger and hatred for 3 hours a day.
Nothing like throwing REAL resources (coal, oil, gas) used for power generation into basically 1's and 0's that someone says are worth $10000 for each BTC. What the fuck? How broken do you have to be to chase NOTHING with something?
Has anyone actually tried to get $10k for a BTC? I'd really like to see someone post they actually cashed out BTC into US Dollars. Last YouTube video I watched on the subject has an fascinating conclusion: It was plenty easy to put cash into the BTC ATM in San Francisco and therefore get a BTC sent to your BTC wallet, but when the guy went to convert the remaining BTC to back to cash (US Dollars).. well... it never happened. He gave up.
Just in case my other reply wasn't clear enough. BELL RESTRICTED WHAT COULD EVEN BE CONNECTED. You had to buy their stuff, not allowed to connect anything but their stuff. You really wanna go back to that? Cuz that's what businesses will do when run as they see fit.
OMG You're going to bring up the Bell Systems breakup? Wow, ok.
First, when Bell was broken up, it became I think 5 different companies doing basically the same thing in each of their regions. They did not compete with each other.
Then you got the rise of the long distance company whom did interconnects between the separate local bell companies. So you got double whammied by local and long distance. And both charged insane prices, by the minute.
The real good that came out of the Bell break up was Bell restricting what could be attached to their system. That was the big win out of that, the resulting spawn companies just kept ripping people off, more so probably.
Not even a comparison. Those same Bell spawn companies eventually got bought up later by Long Distance companies, and we're basically back to where we were, with a few large companies that mostly don't compete with each other.
What we have now for the Internet is very similar but the industry is straddled by NN, so they can't do fuckery to the pipes without raising alarms. And for godsake, they are still trying fuckery, like the video giveaways, extra data cap for certain services from certain providers. Ajit Pai's braindeadness won't even bother to enforce NN anyway, so maybe it will be good it goes away. We'll see, cuz it's going away.
I'm one of the ones who think the FCC regulating Internet access under Title II just leads over time to established/entrenched interests using that to preserve the status quo and prevent innovation and change which might disrupt them in favor of consumers, but hey, as long as/. has a soap box, they're going to keep shouting their view over and over and over again until even people on their side are going to be so annoyed they will stop listening.
What a fantastically empty arguement! I love it. I really do. Title II leads to established/entrenched interests, right? Pretty much what we have right now. Gotcha. OK, so what then? REPEAL NN so those entrenched players can now go hogwild and do whatever the hell they want with the internet? Yeah, that makes sense.
I think most of us don't really care much about the established/entrenched status of internet access. It just is, it's not going to change, no law will change that, and probably shouldn't even be trying. We just want those entrenched/established players kept fair and unbiased, is that really so bad?
While we're on the subject of 'what ifs', how exactly do you envision a post NN world? A bunch of new ISP's popping up all over the place to compete with the big guys? Really? I mean come on, finish what you started, where does repeal of NN lead? Be realistic!
Don't worry little cuckservative snowflake, nobody is going to censor your hate speech.
Actually, the Illiberal snowflakes pictured here would do exactly that, given a chance.
You sound like you approve of hate speech and all that? Seriously? That's got to be a pretty tough position to defend. Haters gotta hate, I guess. Good luck with that. Just remember, hatred hurts the hater and rarely the hated.
The summary is biased, and the story already has 8 different versions of it in the last 3 days (i.e. Pai is the devil incarnate). Enough is enough.
Also, Just for the record, reclassifying the internet as title 2 has other implications. The FCC gets the same power over it as radio. That means anything from forced "decency filters" to "providing equal time for opposite view points" (hello fairness doctrine). I'm 100% for the free flow of packets, but doing it via title 2 is potentially a VERY bad idea, and yet there's a hysterical reaction to all this that title 2 is the only way to save the internet (when in reality, it could be it's death knell). Tell the legislators to get off their lazy asses and make a title 3 especially for it, so the internet is not regulated by a law from 1934.
Sigh. It's misinformation like this that propagates the need to repost the issue OVER AND OVER, cuz idiots like you just don't fucking get it.
The NN rules enacted in 2015, classifying ISP's as Title II common carrier had MANY MANY exemptions to Title II's so as to not apply stupid nonsense telecom rules to ISPs.
Title II is exactly the correct classification with the built-in exemptions. They are common carriers, and should be treated and behave as such.
If you're expecting new laws out of the Republicans, you'll be waiting an awful long time. Repubs are so disorganized and disagree with each other on everything, because deep inside, they know they're defending undefendable positions. It's fucking hilarious. They've done absolutely nothing since Trump took office, they're no less deadlocked than they were with Obama was President. Except now, all the excuses are used up, they have no excuse other than outright incompetence. I don't want that incompetent congress passing laws.
And while we're at it, what was wrong with the fairness doctrine? All I hear now on the radio is loudmouth right-wing the sky is falling armageddon is here bullshit, ever since that was revoked.
All I see is so much hyperbole and chicken little "sky is falling" without any facts to back them up. Its all "What if" scenarios, for a bill that's only been in place for 2 years and didn't fix the monopoly issue.
Need I remind you that Comcast doing fuckery to the net is exactly why Net Neutrality was enacted and made into law? It's painfully obvious ISP's *WILL* engage in fuckery when the gloves are off. The hyperbole isn't. The sky is indeed falling, bro.
Interestingly, back in the old days the common carrier status was what the ISPs used to argue that they shouldn't be held responsible for material like child porn, regular porn, copyrighted material, hate speech, etc. that traversed their networks. Now they want to relinquish the common carrier status. How long do you think it's going to be before some attorney or DA figures this out and goes after them?
I already pointed this out in another thread on this topic. Title II protects ISP's from litigation regarding facilitating criminal behavior on their networks. But no one seems to have an answer: Does revocation of Title II expose ISP's to legal liability regarding facilitating criminality? Does reclassification under Title I continue the same protections? Need someone familiar with the legalese to chime in here please. I am very curious.
Contrary to popular belief, there are stupid scientists. There's no rule that says scientists have to be brilliant and smart, they can be stupid and dimwitted too.
Heck, may as well go on and say, there are probably more stupid scientists than smart ones. There's no reason the scientist label is exempt from the norm of humanity. Way more stupid than there is smart.
While no one but the actual deciders know for sure, but I'd be more than willing to step out on the limb and say: This has absolutely nothing to do with Linux or Windows fitness for the job. They've been doing it for 10 years now, I'm pretty confident any bumps were long ironed out and everything works pretty decently.
Just as TFA said, Microsoft had been lobbying heavily. Never said they stopped. Obviously they kept at it, and finally got their foot in the door. Greed seems to be on a helluv a winning streak in our society.
Title II also contains many compulsory provisions entirely incompatible with Net Neutrality, like censorship of explicit material.
Better shut the whole thing off then! But besides that, there's a whole slew of exemptions on Title II's rules when it comes to the internet. They weren't completely stupid when they put the regulations together. Check out the actual regulatory documents. I'm not sure if that's one of them. I'm not so sure what you're implying is even true. I mean, phone sex? Title II originated from telecom. And you can bet your panties phone sex is a big thing and they wanna keep doing their business, so I doubt rules against that would have ever it made into Title II. But, IANAL and all that.
Look, at the core, the regulations are really not a big deal, I don't understand why this administration is hell bent on tearing them down. They use terms like heavy-handed, and stifling innovation. I mean seriously, how the fuck does rules that basically say 'treat everyone fairly, no fast lanes, no blocking, feel free to do traffic management as needed to provide reliable service.' hinder anything? It's very design is to NOT HINDER, give everyone the same treatment.
The problem with this is that net neutrality removes a big incentive for the ISP to build and improve their network.
Na, it doesn't. The big guys just want you to think that. They created this artificial situation Ajit Pai points to. Of course they held back deployment since NN. What better way to prove to the regulators that it's harming them. Total BS. This deal was sealed and paid for a long time ago, just pushing the papers around.
Justin Trudeau's opinion isn't even relevant to most of Canada, but he still forces it on us, anyway....
You have a very malfunctioned perspective on force. Did Justin come to your house and do some Clockwork Orange to you and force you to look at his words?
Slashdot Mirror
... when it was introduced in 2015? When the regulators sat down in that meeting they must have acted in response to a specific trouble caused by lack of net neutrality prior to that. What was that trouble? I am genuinely interested.
Comcast throttling Netflix and Bittorrent, the former had to pay up to setup CDN's on Comcast's networks to avoid throttling. Someone didn't wanna pay their peering for all those bits coming from Netflix. Just one example of why NN got enacted. I could go on.. Verizon blocking Facetime? The current fuckery with mobile providers dishing out 'no cap streaming' 'deals' to favor their affiliates.
But, don't worry. NN is dead, it has been dead since Ajit Pai was installed as chairman. They haven't been enforcing NN at all anyway, so yeah.. except now the ISP's will have a completely free hand to do all the fuckery they desire.
then wouldn't a delay actually help the Reptilians... I mean Republicans?
If they dare to seat Roy Moore, it will be the Repedocans.
This is free markets. Duh? What did you expect? People not to take advantage of other people to make a buck?
but every time I research the raw data it becomes very clear these aren't all that smart of AIs. In fact, the term AI is very misleading. They're more like smart scripts. ;-)
I think it's more along the lines of: OOOOH we made something can do ONE of multitude of things the human brain can do, and therefore it's intelligent.
Poppycock. Y'all got a really impressive image recognition system there, but you know, just being able to tell what something is by looking at is a very very minuscule piece of what human intelligence is.
Now if they can expand this into other areas of human intelligence, and make it all come together to form some sort of 'awareness,' yeah, I dunno, they got a long way to go. A very long way.
This is image recognition + genetic algorithms, though given Google is a marketing company and not a computer company it makes sense they would market that as AI. Too bad they fired all the competent developers.
I gotta agree. This isn't too far from a Bayesian classifier. Just souped up with neutal networks. And it's really no surprise that as we make better tools, we can use those better tools to make even better tools. Kinda the history of everything.
But to say this is 'Intelligent' is pretty silly. It's a souped up classifier that was built with a souped up classifier training it. Big deal.
Such a war could well last until the end of time.
Such a war would lack the horrors of war. Which is the problem of course. Wars need loss of life, horrific atrocities and anything else terrible to encourages both sides to negotiate. Robot wars would be pretty boring, they wouldn't last until the end of time either. People would realize they're not getting anywhere with just robots and start putting humans back in harms way to tip the balance back in their favor, then the other side does the same. Then we get the horrors of war, which will mean it will end eventually.
Be better of course to just do away with war entirely. Hopeful!
My money is on it's just an earth bacteria that's undergone some mutations while in space.
Would definitely be exciting if it's really not from earth. Would definitely have to study it extensively.
Gotta agree with Pai on this. Social media is a mixed bag, and probably a lot more bad than good.
I don't use any social media (unless /. counts?), I just watch videos and use old school MUD games and other gaming. I think Facebook and Twitter are stupid and a monumental waste of time. As a gamer, for me to say something is a waste of time.. it's gotta be pretty inane and worthless.
Sadly, at the same time, I'm observant enough to realize a lot of your average John Doe's actually think Facebook *IS* the Internet. Kinda feel sorry for them, it's soooooo much more.
Nothing quite like trying to load a game off cassette tape, trying to get the volume just right so the computer will read it properly. Trying again and again, with different audio gear to try to read the frickin tape. Yeah, good times.
Imagine giving equal time to opposing view points on something like the Huffington Post. Or some climate change news website. Do you want a climate research website have an equally sized section by law dedicated to "climate deniers"? The site doesn't want that, the patrons of the site don't want that, and the gesture wont bring in any new people either.
I was referring to Fairness Doctrine related to radio, not websites. It doesn't even make sense for websites.
But I dunno, maybe it really does need to come back, for radio, cuz as a result of it getting repealed, we got left-leaning NPR and everything else is right-wing loudmouths whipping their listeners into an angry frenzy of distrust and hatred of...everything! Doesn't really seem like a good result.
I'm not closed minded, I do occasionally tune into the right-wing bullshit, just to hear the other side, and it's just so much nonsense and anger, and trying to make me feel angry too. Not really a good experience. But I guess the right likes to be angry and pissed off all the time, no wonder they're so unpleasant. I would be too if I was whipped into a frenzy of anger and hatred for 3 hours a day.
Nothing like throwing REAL resources (coal, oil, gas) used for power generation into basically 1's and 0's that someone says are worth $10000 for each BTC. What the fuck? How broken do you have to be to chase NOTHING with something?
Has anyone actually tried to get $10k for a BTC? I'd really like to see someone post they actually cashed out BTC into US Dollars. Last YouTube video I watched on the subject has an fascinating conclusion: It was plenty easy to put cash into the BTC ATM in San Francisco and therefore get a BTC sent to your BTC wallet, but when the guy went to convert the remaining BTC to back to cash (US Dollars).. well... it never happened. He gave up.
Just in case my other reply wasn't clear enough. BELL RESTRICTED WHAT COULD EVEN BE CONNECTED. You had to buy their stuff, not allowed to connect anything but their stuff. You really wanna go back to that? Cuz that's what businesses will do when run as they see fit.
OMG You're going to bring up the Bell Systems breakup? Wow, ok.
First, when Bell was broken up, it became I think 5 different companies doing basically the same thing in each of their regions. They did not compete with each other.
Then you got the rise of the long distance company whom did interconnects between the separate local bell companies. So you got double whammied by local and long distance. And both charged insane prices, by the minute.
The real good that came out of the Bell break up was Bell restricting what could be attached to their system. That was the big win out of that, the resulting spawn companies just kept ripping people off, more so probably.
Not even a comparison. Those same Bell spawn companies eventually got bought up later by Long Distance companies, and we're basically back to where we were, with a few large companies that mostly don't compete with each other.
What we have now for the Internet is very similar but the industry is straddled by NN, so they can't do fuckery to the pipes without raising alarms. And for godsake, they are still trying fuckery, like the video giveaways, extra data cap for certain services from certain providers. Ajit Pai's braindeadness won't even bother to enforce NN anyway, so maybe it will be good it goes away. We'll see, cuz it's going away.
I'm one of the ones who think the FCC regulating Internet access under Title II just leads over time to established/entrenched interests using that to preserve the status quo and prevent innovation and change which might disrupt them in favor of consumers, but hey, as long as /. has a soap box, they're going to keep shouting their view over and over and over again until even people on their side are going to be so annoyed they will stop listening.
What a fantastically empty arguement! I love it. I really do. Title II leads to established/entrenched interests, right? Pretty much what we have right now. Gotcha. OK, so what then? REPEAL NN so those entrenched players can now go hogwild and do whatever the hell they want with the internet? Yeah, that makes sense.
I think most of us don't really care much about the established/entrenched status of internet access. It just is, it's not going to change, no law will change that, and probably shouldn't even be trying. We just want those entrenched/established players kept fair and unbiased, is that really so bad?
While we're on the subject of 'what ifs', how exactly do you envision a post NN world? A bunch of new ISP's popping up all over the place to compete with the big guys? Really? I mean come on, finish what you started, where does repeal of NN lead? Be realistic!
Actually, the Illiberal snowflakes pictured here would do exactly that, given a chance.
You sound like you approve of hate speech and all that? Seriously? That's got to be a pretty tough position to defend. Haters gotta hate, I guess. Good luck with that. Just remember, hatred hurts the hater and rarely the hated.
The summary is biased, and the story already has 8 different versions of it in the last 3 days (i.e. Pai is the devil incarnate). Enough is enough.
Also, Just for the record, reclassifying the internet as title 2 has other implications. The FCC gets the same power over it as radio. That means anything from forced "decency filters" to "providing equal time for opposite view points" (hello fairness doctrine).
I'm 100% for the free flow of packets, but doing it via title 2 is potentially a VERY bad idea, and yet there's a hysterical reaction to all this that title 2 is the only way to save the internet (when in reality, it could be it's death knell). Tell the legislators to get off their lazy asses and make a title 3 especially for it, so the internet is not regulated by a law from 1934.
Sigh. It's misinformation like this that propagates the need to repost the issue OVER AND OVER, cuz idiots like you just don't fucking get it.
The NN rules enacted in 2015, classifying ISP's as Title II common carrier had MANY MANY exemptions to Title II's so as to not apply stupid nonsense telecom rules to ISPs.
Title II is exactly the correct classification with the built-in exemptions. They are common carriers, and should be treated and behave as such.
If you're expecting new laws out of the Republicans, you'll be waiting an awful long time. Repubs are so disorganized and disagree with each other on everything, because deep inside, they know they're defending undefendable positions. It's fucking hilarious. They've done absolutely nothing since Trump took office, they're no less deadlocked than they were with Obama was President. Except now, all the excuses are used up, they have no excuse other than outright incompetence. I don't want that incompetent congress passing laws.
And while we're at it, what was wrong with the fairness doctrine? All I hear now on the radio is loudmouth right-wing the sky is falling armageddon is here bullshit, ever since that was revoked.
All I see is so much hyperbole and chicken little "sky is falling" without any facts to back them up. Its all "What if" scenarios, for a bill that's only been in place for 2 years and didn't fix the monopoly issue.
Need I remind you that Comcast doing fuckery to the net is exactly why Net Neutrality was enacted and made into law? It's painfully obvious ISP's *WILL* engage in fuckery when the gloves are off. The hyperbole isn't. The sky is indeed falling, bro.
Interestingly, back in the old days the common carrier status was what the ISPs used to argue that they shouldn't be held responsible for material like child porn, regular porn, copyrighted material, hate speech, etc. that traversed their networks. Now they want to relinquish the common carrier status. How long do you think it's going to be before some attorney or DA figures this out and goes after them?
I already pointed this out in another thread on this topic. Title II protects ISP's from litigation regarding facilitating criminal behavior on their networks. But no one seems to have an answer: Does revocation of Title II expose ISP's to legal liability regarding facilitating criminality? Does reclassification under Title I continue the same protections? Need someone familiar with the legalese to chime in here please. I am very curious.
...ISP to offer 'fast lanes', and it's all over. Everyone else will follow suit. Then the blocking and throttling of competitors services.
Ready yourselves for Intersplit.
Great fucking job. I hope those of you that voted for this got what you wanted.
"scientist", really?
Contrary to popular belief, there are stupid scientists. There's no rule that says scientists have to be brilliant and smart, they can be stupid and dimwitted too.
Heck, may as well go on and say, there are probably more stupid scientists than smart ones. There's no reason the scientist label is exempt from the norm of humanity. Way more stupid than there is smart.
I hope it blows up spectacularly. He'll get a darwin award for sure.
While no one but the actual deciders know for sure, but I'd be more than willing to step out on the limb and say: This has absolutely nothing to do with Linux or Windows fitness for the job. They've been doing it for 10 years now, I'm pretty confident any bumps were long ironed out and everything works pretty decently.
Just as TFA said, Microsoft had been lobbying heavily. Never said they stopped. Obviously they kept at it, and finally got their foot in the door. Greed seems to be on a helluv a winning streak in our society.
Title II also contains many compulsory provisions entirely incompatible with Net Neutrality, like censorship of explicit material.
Better shut the whole thing off then! But besides that, there's a whole slew of exemptions on Title II's rules when it comes to the internet. They weren't completely stupid when they put the regulations together. Check out the actual regulatory documents. I'm not sure if that's one of them. I'm not so sure what you're implying is even true. I mean, phone sex? Title II originated from telecom. And you can bet your panties phone sex is a big thing and they wanna keep doing their business, so I doubt rules against that would have ever it made into Title II. But, IANAL and all that.
Look, at the core, the regulations are really not a big deal, I don't understand why this administration is hell bent on tearing them down. They use terms like heavy-handed, and stifling innovation. I mean seriously, how the fuck does rules that basically say 'treat everyone fairly, no fast lanes, no blocking, feel free to do traffic management as needed to provide reliable service.' hinder anything? It's very design is to NOT HINDER, give everyone the same treatment.
The problem with this is that net neutrality removes a big incentive for the ISP to build and improve their network.
Na, it doesn't. The big guys just want you to think that. They created this artificial situation Ajit Pai points to. Of course they held back deployment since NN. What better way to prove to the regulators that it's harming them. Total BS. This deal was sealed and paid for a long time ago, just pushing the papers around.
Justin Trudeau's opinion isn't even relevant to most of Canada, but he still forces it on us, anyway....
You have a very malfunctioned perspective on force. Did Justin come to your house and do some Clockwork Orange to you and force you to look at his words?