Maybe I need to do more research on the topic to figure out what exactly it is that people mean when they talk about network neutrality, especially since it seems to mean different things to different people. However, I'm not sure that we really have network neutrality now, nor can we. Just thinking of protocols such as BGP, which basically makes the Internet work at all, and which makes all of its routing decisions based on admin/management policy and not based on any technical metrics, so that certain routes will always be favored, especially those through peers, makes me think that network neutrality in the sense of ensuring that there aren't transit fees and data tariffs to keep competing content second class is sort of impossible.
I'll freely admit that I'm not in possession of extremely in-depth knowledge of how major ISPs handle their business, having been a system admin at a web hosting company and now working a provider of niche networking hardware, but what's the difference between one AS #1 peering with AS #2 and allowing free transit of data, but meetering data sourced at AS #3 which has no peerage agreement and charging them for the use of their tubes? How can we continue to use BGP, which isn't designed with "fairness" of routes in mind (at least not to my understanding, as opposed to other routing protocols which build routes based on metrics such as hop count and bandwidth), but which is designed to allow one AS to favor another AS explicitly, and still have network neutrality?
Or are people really only concerned that ISPs providing end-user service don't shape traffic and limit bt use, for example, but don't care whether their ISP just refuses to directly exchange routing tables with their favorite media conglomerate and increase the lag in their video streaming?
If I'm off-base with this one, please feel free to let me know, though.
Somehow, I don't think that missing a full night's sleep causes a permanent drop in IQ, otherwise slashdotter's would probably be some of the dumbest people alive. Same with checking email. The effects are likely temporary. I don't find it hard to believe that there is a permanent and compounding effect associated with drug use, however i doubt that it's a full 4 point drop EVERY time you use... likely there is a temporary drop then a rebound that's not a full recovery which over time stair-steps down.
but what about the anti-matter people? What if there are more of them? they could each touch one of us, destroy everyone, and they'd have more left over, so they'd win...
yeah, i just noticed that, but typically idle crap is under the idle heading and i don't have to look at tags i usually ignore anyway. i guess that's what i get for trying to read the article.
As to the Skull and Bones thing, I know its not very "geek" to be into the whole fraternity scene, but Skull and Bones is probably just a much less Democratic version of any Greek fraternity, including the one I was in. In those types of organizations, they exist mainly on the basis that you don't keep secrets from your brothers, and I can assume that with a fraternity that boasts Senators, Presidents and CIA directors, not only are they well aware of what goes on with this type of deal, but that there is at least a gentlemen's agreement among them as to who can get at their little brother's data.
I don't think the Skull and Bones people need to be worried, and if half the paranoid hype about them is true, then they probably don't give a rats ass about the privacy of anyone not in their clique. Just sayin'.
They could incorporate as a 501(c)4, which unlike a 501(c)3 would allow them to lobby, and the organization itself would still be a non-profit, but donations to it would not be tax-exempt for those making the donations.
The issue with Ron Paul and the Nazis, which I use as an example because it actually happened, is that his public support was reduced due to "normal" people finding out, via the collaborationist media, that he was receiving donations as well as public messages of endorsement in neo-nazi circles. Thus, the assumption was, if the Nazis support him, he must be a Nazi.
It has nothing to do with a candidate taking offense that people support him -- I think most candidates will take whatever support they can get, though in certain circumstances I'm sure they wish it were more cover than overt. The point I was raising is that because on the internet the barrier to entry is so low that any douche-bag can come online and say whatever they want to, often times poisoning the well.
That's an example of a candidate being torpedoed by the collaborationist media because of something someone else did, but its on the same principles that the anti-globalization movement suffers from trumped-up media claims of damage and riots during the Seattle WTO protests about 10 years ago. Most of that was b.s., but you would either have to have been there or go looking for a wide variety of sources, not just collaborationist media, to know it.
the illusion of the "free press," most of the bill of rights, the doubly-artificial construct of the "middle class," (doubly artificial because its carved out of urban proletariat, which is itself a byproduct of industrialization and is by no means a natural human condition) etc -- these are all just steam valves to let off pressure on society and are all counter-revolutionary. Especially the construct of the middle class, which is basically just a wide-scale version of picking "house n*****s" from the field hands. You may get better treatment than the rest of your comrades, but at the end of the day you're still under the yolk, just like the Jewish cops in the Warsaw Ghetto.
Yeah, actually I haven't seen those either. And I don't call myself a geek. I just go to work and do my job, which is technical, and which I'm not bad at -- but at the end of the day, I'm more interested in Terry Jones's literary scholarship than his Monty Python work. Sorry to disappoint.
Unified across instances per entity. Fox News is part of NewsCorp, which owns also the Wall Street Journal. I think you would be hard-pressed to find much editorial disagreement between Fox Business and the WSJ, for instance.
Also, the fact that you cite web content as a counter-point doesn't actually provide a counter-point, as I addressed that in my initial post -- the internet lowers the barrier to entry, but often times beyond a level which allows for sanity. For instance, neo-nazi groups endorsing in "their press" a candidate such as Ron Paul, which causes unintended negative press for him, plus draws attention to the existence of neo-nazi propaganda sites, both of which are then addressed in the collaborationist media and used to denounce everything from the candidate to free speech on the internet (after all, we can't have "hate speech", now can we?).
However, the fact that I can go on amazon.com and order whatever AK Press productions I want with (apparently) no interference from the man does show that we have more freedom than other countries, or at least that we're let to think that we do.
Frankly, there is really nothing like the subtle tyranny of thought in play in an Enlightenment state. As an "idea nation," one's nationality is defined as adherence to certain basic principles. Thus, if one steps out of the very narrow band of neo-liberalism that's allowed in the US then one is immediately attacked as "un-American," "anti-American," etc, where in a country such as Italy, whether one is a Fascist or a Communist is incidental to their Italian-ness, and thus I would submit that they are allowed more freedom of conscience as their opposition to the State isn't immediate grounds for their excommunication from their nationality.
We have a free press in the sense that there is very little government control over what gets printed. However, in the sense that most print and tv news outlets are owned by major conglomerates who have them present a more-or-less unified message. Clearly, the Internet lowers that barrier to entry and helps create a more even playing field, but on the flip-side of that is the problem of too many cooks in the kitchen, more than a handful of whom are kooks who may be a detriment to your argument by virtue of their alignment with you in any way.
There is likely a balance that can be struck which would be better for all of us (ie, not the people who own the NewsCorps and Time Warners of the world), which would likely be associated with other general reforms such as elimination of the two-party system by establishment of proportional voting rules, etc. But then again, we're not really likely to see that either.
Slashdot Mirror
brought to you buy the fine folks from expertsexchange.com
Maybe I need to do more research on the topic to figure out what exactly it is that people mean when they talk about network neutrality, especially since it seems to mean different things to different people. However, I'm not sure that we really have network neutrality now, nor can we. Just thinking of protocols such as BGP, which basically makes the Internet work at all, and which makes all of its routing decisions based on admin/management policy and not based on any technical metrics, so that certain routes will always be favored, especially those through peers, makes me think that network neutrality in the sense of ensuring that there aren't transit fees and data tariffs to keep competing content second class is sort of impossible.
I'll freely admit that I'm not in possession of extremely in-depth knowledge of how major ISPs handle their business, having been a system admin at a web hosting company and now working a provider of niche networking hardware, but what's the difference between one AS #1 peering with AS #2 and allowing free transit of data, but meetering data sourced at AS #3 which has no peerage agreement and charging them for the use of their tubes? How can we continue to use BGP, which isn't designed with "fairness" of routes in mind (at least not to my understanding, as opposed to other routing protocols which build routes based on metrics such as hop count and bandwidth), but which is designed to allow one AS to favor another AS explicitly, and still have network neutrality?
Or are people really only concerned that ISPs providing end-user service don't shape traffic and limit bt use, for example, but don't care whether their ISP just refuses to directly exchange routing tables with their favorite media conglomerate and increase the lag in their video streaming?
If I'm off-base with this one, please feel free to let me know, though.
The one who's been up for 36hrs has probably been dipping into the dispensary stash, too. That's where all the really good stuff is, anyway.
Somehow, I don't think that missing a full night's sleep causes a permanent drop in IQ, otherwise slashdotter's would probably be some of the dumbest people alive. Same with checking email. The effects are likely temporary. I don't find it hard to believe that there is a permanent and compounding effect associated with drug use, however i doubt that it's a full 4 point drop EVERY time you use... likely there is a temporary drop then a rebound that's not a full recovery which over time stair-steps down.
Mind you, I have done no research in this topic.
but what about the anti-matter people? What if there are more of them? they could each touch one of us, destroy everyone, and they'd have more left over, so they'd win...
How do we know that we aren't the anti-matter and that what we think is anti-matter is really matter? Not so common sense, is it?
yeah, i just noticed that, but typically idle crap is under the idle heading and i don't have to look at tags i usually ignore anyway. i guess that's what i get for trying to read the article.
This is a link to College Humor... did Taco even mouse over? Why is this on the front page? Quit wasting my time while I'm wasting my employer's time!
By "gone the way of the dinosaurs," they mean "turned into birds and are now all around us, constantly chirping."
If you do that long enough, you'll end up with really bad eyes anyway.
As to the Skull and Bones thing, I know its not very "geek" to be into the whole fraternity scene, but Skull and Bones is probably just a much less Democratic version of any Greek fraternity, including the one I was in. In those types of organizations, they exist mainly on the basis that you don't keep secrets from your brothers, and I can assume that with a fraternity that boasts Senators, Presidents and CIA directors, not only are they well aware of what goes on with this type of deal, but that there is at least a gentlemen's agreement among them as to who can get at their little brother's data.
I don't think the Skull and Bones people need to be worried, and if half the paranoid hype about them is true, then they probably don't give a rats ass about the privacy of anyone not in their clique. Just sayin'.
Methinks the lady doth protest too much, however I feel that now may be the winter of her discontent....
They could incorporate as a 501(c)4, which unlike a 501(c)3 would allow them to lobby, and the organization itself would still be a non-profit, but donations to it would not be tax-exempt for those making the donations.
There is no such thing as gravity, only Intelligent Falling, whereby Angels grab your ankles and pull you back down to the ground.
The issue with Ron Paul and the Nazis, which I use as an example because it actually happened, is that his public support was reduced due to "normal" people finding out, via the collaborationist media, that he was receiving donations as well as public messages of endorsement in neo-nazi circles. Thus, the assumption was, if the Nazis support him, he must be a Nazi.
It has nothing to do with a candidate taking offense that people support him -- I think most candidates will take whatever support they can get, though in certain circumstances I'm sure they wish it were more cover than overt. The point I was raising is that because on the internet the barrier to entry is so low that any douche-bag can come online and say whatever they want to, often times poisoning the well.
That's an example of a candidate being torpedoed by the collaborationist media because of something someone else did, but its on the same principles that the anti-globalization movement suffers from trumped-up media claims of damage and riots during the Seattle WTO protests about 10 years ago. Most of that was b.s., but you would either have to have been there or go looking for a wide variety of sources, not just collaborationist media, to know it.
the illusion of the "free press," most of the bill of rights, the doubly-artificial construct of the "middle class," (doubly artificial because its carved out of urban proletariat, which is itself a byproduct of industrialization and is by no means a natural human condition) etc -- these are all just steam valves to let off pressure on society and are all counter-revolutionary. Especially the construct of the middle class, which is basically just a wide-scale version of picking "house n*****s" from the field hands. You may get better treatment than the rest of your comrades, but at the end of the day you're still under the yolk, just like the Jewish cops in the Warsaw Ghetto.
Yeah, actually I haven't seen those either. And I don't call myself a geek. I just go to work and do my job, which is technical, and which I'm not bad at -- but at the end of the day, I'm more interested in Terry Jones's literary scholarship than his Monty Python work. Sorry to disappoint.
Unified across instances per entity. Fox News is part of NewsCorp, which owns also the Wall Street Journal. I think you would be hard-pressed to find much editorial disagreement between Fox Business and the WSJ, for instance.
Also, the fact that you cite web content as a counter-point doesn't actually provide a counter-point, as I addressed that in my initial post -- the internet lowers the barrier to entry, but often times beyond a level which allows for sanity. For instance, neo-nazi groups endorsing in "their press" a candidate such as Ron Paul, which causes unintended negative press for him, plus draws attention to the existence of neo-nazi propaganda sites, both of which are then addressed in the collaborationist media and used to denounce everything from the candidate to free speech on the internet (after all, we can't have "hate speech", now can we?).
However, the fact that I can go on amazon.com and order whatever AK Press productions I want with (apparently) no interference from the man does show that we have more freedom than other countries, or at least that we're let to think that we do.
Frankly, there is really nothing like the subtle tyranny of thought in play in an Enlightenment state. As an "idea nation," one's nationality is defined as adherence to certain basic principles. Thus, if one steps out of the very narrow band of neo-liberalism that's allowed in the US then one is immediately attacked as "un-American," "anti-American," etc, where in a country such as Italy, whether one is a Fascist or a Communist is incidental to their Italian-ness, and thus I would submit that they are allowed more freedom of conscience as their opposition to the State isn't immediate grounds for their excommunication from their nationality.
We have a free press in the sense that there is very little government control over what gets printed. However, in the sense that most print and tv news outlets are owned by major conglomerates who have them present a more-or-less unified message. Clearly, the Internet lowers that barrier to entry and helps create a more even playing field, but on the flip-side of that is the problem of too many cooks in the kitchen, more than a handful of whom are kooks who may be a detriment to your argument by virtue of their alignment with you in any way.
There is likely a balance that can be struck which would be better for all of us (ie, not the people who own the NewsCorps and Time Warners of the world), which would likely be associated with other general reforms such as elimination of the two-party system by establishment of proportional voting rules, etc. But then again, we're not really likely to see that either.
I've actually never seen that movie.
Whether or not the people who sign the contracts are stupid isn't the issue, its how greedy they are, and I think we all know the answer to that.
Who gave all the mod points to the Sarah Palin fans?
He's hoping for a career as a Fox News analyst instead.
Well, our choice was between the Red Bureaucracy and the Fascist Boot. What the hell were we supposed to do that didn't involve fire?
I guess I didn't really need a cell phone anyway.
And here I squandered all my mod points on dumb crap... I wish I had saved some.