Let me clue you in on something: Tsangvirai's mere quality as the Zimbabwean opposition leader has been far more of a problem for his ongoing health than any discussion he's ever had with "foreign powers". Your focus on something that was widely suspected before and which was already known in bits and pieces by Mugabe betrays your actual goal: to find something where Wikileaks has caused death. This, again, isn't it.
The man can now, quite legitimately, demonstrate that those people fighting for reform in Zimbabwe were, in fact, *supportive* of sanctions that have hurt the Zimbabwean people. Are those sanctions ultimately necessary?
And he was doing it before the leaks, and would have done it without it. What's your point? If people are gullible enough to mistake discussions with foreign powers about how to remove a murderous killer from power with treason, they are gullible enough to believe any lie.
In short, you're a naive, apologist twat. For Mugabe, no less.
And they are far less likely to do that if the only voice of reform is painted as a western puppet and a traitor.
And Mugabe doesn't need Wikileaks for this, it was merely convenient. Do you think that someone who shoots people because they bother him has any issues lying about people?
Some people can only be removed by force, and will keep killing until they are killed. Mugabe is one of them. If the citizens don't have the firepower to do it, it is the moral duty of someone who can to do it. I'm all for arresting him and giving him a fair trial, but I also will not shed a tear if he is killed while resisting arrest.
Do you have any idea who Mugabe is? Subverting Mugabe is very much like subverting Hitler or Stalin: the entire world should give you a frickin medal, and the citizens of the country should pay your retirement.
The big issue is that Paris sits in a river basin. On days without enough wind, the smog just sits over the city. It's pretty gnarly. Moving the pollution anywhere else is a big win because it becomes less localized, and impacts less people.
Of course, the article, written by the research staff at National Vanguard books, continues:
"For example, a racially mixed couple will be respected, liked, and socially sought after by other characters, as will a “take charge” Black scholar or businessman, or a sensitive and talented homosexual, or a poor but honest and hardworking illegal alien from Mexico. On the other hand, a White racist—that is, any racially conscious White person who looks askance at miscegenation or at the rapidly darkening racial situation in America—is portrayed, at best, as a despicable bigot who is reviled by the other characters, or, at worst, as a dangerous psychopath who is fascinated by firearms and is a menace to all law-abiding citizens. The White racist “gun nut,” in fact, has become a familiar stereotype on TV shows. The average American, of whose daily life TV-watching takes such an unhealthy portion, distinguishes between these fictional situations and reality only with difficulty, if at all. He responds to the televised actions, statements, and attitudes of TV actors much as he does to his own peers in real life. For all too many Americans the real world has been replaced by the false reality of the TV environment, and it is to this false reality that his urge to conform responds. Thus, when a TV scriptwriter expresses approval of some ideas and actions through the TV characters for whom he is writing, and disapproval of others, he exerts a powerful pressure on millions of viewers toward conformity with his own views. And as it is with TV entertainment, so it is also with the news, whether televised or printed. The insidious thing about this form of thought control is that even when we realize that entertainment or news is biased, the media masters still are able to manipulate most of us. This is because they not only slant what they present, but also they establish tacit boundaries and ground rules for the permissible spectrum of opinion."
Yes, those poor oppressed racists who only want to prevent others from darkening America. It's not that they are espousing a universally reviled concept, it's just a few masters in the media who brainwash everybody else. The racists are the true, strong, independent Americans! Riiiiight....
It's pure FUD. It hits all the hallmarks of the current fearmongering deployed by right-wing conservatives and wanna-be vertical monopolies like Comcast: putting any regulation on the Internet will lower innovation, increase costs, reduce offerings, reduce service and turn the US into a communist concentration camp run by liberals.
Here's why I actually like reading them: only if you know your enemy will you know how to defeat them. I hear these arguments repeated quite often at work (ironically, a web development shop), and it's nice that I know ahead of time why these arguments are wrong and what the counter-arguments are. It's much easier to be convincing if you have the data available from the top of your head about why they're wrong, rather than have to say "I'll send you the link later".
It is regrettable both that./ has descended to this kind of pandering in order to attract readership and that, judging by most comments in here, they have consequently succeeded in attracting an audience that doesn't take the minimal time necessary to examine the source material provided and come to a conclusion on the actual merits.
/. has descended to not RTFA'ing? For Zombie Jesus' sake, it's a sport here with its own acronym. Ever since, well, day 1. Even a 7-digit UID should know that.
Even if the promise is backed by punishment if they break it, it's still a terrible idea, and there's no way they can cover every bad thing Comcast could do in the promise.
Not only that, but the fines that the FCC would have to levy in order to dissuade Comcast from doing these bad things would be record breaking. They would have to be in the billions of dollars per year of operation. Anything short of that is a win for Comcast. And that's just not going to happen.
Gotta give Comcast credit: they know how to prevent being a commodity provider. It's too bad there's a lot of free-market fundies out there who don't get exactly how bad this would be for actual competition in the ISP and content markets.
Absolutely. But that's not going anywhere, not to mention that it comes with its own set of peculiar problems. See the British railway system, for example.
Wow... you are dense, aren't you? In order to have a peering agreement with a provider, you need to be able to accept as much traffic as you send. Which, guess what, needs the same few billion in investment that the peer already has. If you don't, you're hosed. If the backbone provider doesn't want you hooking into their lines (presumably because you're a direct competitor), they won't let you, price be damned. Either way, you pay out the nose. Why? Because the existing telco wants to extract monopoly rents from the market, not the competitive price it might have to settle for if it sells bandwidth to you.
Tell me, you've never worked in a telcom environment, have you?
Really? Then try setting up an ISP without renting out space on anyone's infrastructure. You need a couple of billion dollars before you even hit the last mile problem.
No shit. In the meantime, you are stuck with two choices: one that is guaranteed to fuck you now, or one that has a chance to fuck you later. What do you do?
It's pretty simple: in a monopolistic environment, you have power only through the representative process. In a free market, you have more power through your pocket book. Identify what type of market you're in, and the decision is easy.
You clearly didn't pay attention in Econ 101 when they went over what is necessary for a free market, what barriers to entry into that market mean to competition, and where infrastructure fits in when discussing efficient markets.
It's unfortunate that your ignorance seems to be the common opinion of American voters.
They don't want my streaming video to interfere with their other customers' VOIP calls...
That's not what's going to kill the Internet. That's a problem that's easily solved with QoS and prioritizing based on protocol. What they don't want - and will pretty much kill to prevent - is they don't want you to stream video content that competes with their video content. And since the Telcos all got smart and invested in content providers, it is trivial from a technical perspective to implement this.
In China, the free Internet died because the government didn't want the users to watch Tiananmen videos. In the US, the free Internet will die because corporations don't want the users to watch content they're not getting paid for.
It is simply saying not packet dicrimination. So yes there will be regulators but they do not have fiat control, just enforcement responsibilities.
However, the regulation that no packet shall be discriminated against based on its origin requires fiat control. The trick here is that the initial fiat control gives way to only enforcement responsibilities. It's unlikely to be that way, but then again: "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." The price for a near-free Internet will be eternal vigilance for people who will seek permanent fiat control.
The Internet is not going to remain free, regardless of what happens. Either Telcos and content providers integrate to add value to their commoditized dumb pipes and control where users go through caps and channel pricing, or the government regulates what Telcos and ISPs can and cannot do to users. One is the guaranteed effect of a capitalistic system in a market with very high barriers to entry, the other is the result of a population wanting some input on how a market prone to the creation of monopolies.
This means that the argument that a lack of regulation is the same as a free system is a flat-out lie. It necessarily implies that corporations will never engage in monopolistic rent-seeking, which is clearly false.
The only question then is: who gets to control the Internet? A corporation, or a bureaucrat? Furthermore, will control be left to an entity that is guaranteed to create a system that is designed to maximize its profit, or to an entity where the common citizens has even a chance of providing input?
This doesn't mean that any regulation is good. Some regulation will lead to the same result as no regulation. Some will lead to worse results. But there is at least the chance that it will lead to a better result. What's more, other countries have already shown what kind of regulatory environment is more beneficial to users than the one that currently exists in the US. So it's not that it's hard - it just requires some politicians to be afraid of their constituents.
Finally, I'd like to point something out that Americans seem to have a hard time understanding: a corporation is not a person. Furthermore, a corporation behaves like a sociopath. This means that things that benefit a corporation are not the same that benefit society as a whole. Remember that next time a corporate lobbyists argues that what's good for them is good for the country.
You do realize that a spectrum has a bandwidth that is limited by physics? That the spectrum available to private citizens is puny? And that just dropping more wireless receivers/broadcasters into an area with a saturated spectrum does not increase bandwidth?
There's a reason wireless isn't being used to funnel large traffic around.
I'm just wondering what you call the passage of the current Healthcare plan? I mean, some people were calling it the Deathpanel plan.... seems like there was a fight there.
Slashdot Mirror
It's moronic of you to believe it hasn't helped.
Let me clue you in on something: Tsangvirai's mere quality as the Zimbabwean opposition leader has been far more of a problem for his ongoing health than any discussion he's ever had with "foreign powers". Your focus on something that was widely suspected before and which was already known in bits and pieces by Mugabe betrays your actual goal: to find something where Wikileaks has caused death. This, again, isn't it.
The man can now, quite legitimately, demonstrate that those people fighting for reform in Zimbabwe were, in fact, *supportive* of sanctions that have hurt the Zimbabwean people. Are those sanctions ultimately necessary?
And he was doing it before the leaks, and would have done it without it. What's your point? If people are gullible enough to mistake discussions with foreign powers about how to remove a murderous killer from power with treason, they are gullible enough to believe any lie.
In short, you're a naive, apologist twat. For Mugabe, no less.
And they are far less likely to do that if the only voice of reform is painted as a western puppet and a traitor.
And Mugabe doesn't need Wikileaks for this, it was merely convenient. Do you think that someone who shoots people because they bother him has any issues lying about people?
Some people can only be removed by force, and will keep killing until they are killed. Mugabe is one of them. If the citizens don't have the firepower to do it, it is the moral duty of someone who can to do it. I'm all for arresting him and giving him a fair trial, but I also will not shed a tear if he is killed while resisting arrest.
Do you have any idea who Mugabe is? Subverting Mugabe is very much like subverting Hitler or Stalin: the entire world should give you a frickin medal, and the citizens of the country should pay your retirement.
The big issue is that Paris sits in a river basin. On days without enough wind, the smog just sits over the city. It's pretty gnarly. Moving the pollution anywhere else is a big win because it becomes less localized, and impacts less people.
It's true that secular Jewish people completely own western media.
Of course. Just look at Rupert Murdoch. Oh,wait....
Of course, the article, written by the research staff at National Vanguard books, continues:
"For example, a racially mixed couple will be respected, liked, and socially sought after by other characters, as will
a “take charge” Black scholar or businessman, or a sensitive and talented homosexual, or a poor but honest and
hardworking illegal alien from Mexico. On the other hand, a White racist—that is, any racially conscious White person
who looks askance at miscegenation or at the rapidly darkening racial situation in America—is portrayed, at best,
as a despicable bigot who is reviled by the other characters, or, at worst, as a dangerous psychopath who is fascinated
by firearms and is a menace to all law-abiding citizens. The White racist “gun nut,” in fact, has become a familiar
stereotype on TV shows.
The average American, of whose daily life TV-watching takes such an unhealthy portion, distinguishes between
these fictional situations and reality only with difficulty, if at all. He responds to the televised actions, statements, and
attitudes of TV actors much as he does to his own peers in real life. For all too many Americans the real world has
been replaced by the false reality of the TV environment, and it is to this false reality that his urge to conform responds.
Thus, when a TV scriptwriter expresses approval of some ideas and actions through the TV characters for
whom he is writing, and disapproval of others, he exerts a powerful pressure on millions of viewers toward conformity
with his own views.
And as it is with TV entertainment, so it is also with the news, whether televised or printed. The insidious thing about
this form of thought control is that even when we realize that entertainment or news is biased, the media masters still
are able to manipulate most of us. This is because they not only slant what they present, but also they establish tacit
boundaries and ground rules for the permissible spectrum of opinion."
Yes, those poor oppressed racists who only want to prevent others from darkening America. It's not that they are espousing a universally reviled concept, it's just a few masters in the media who brainwash everybody else. The racists are the true, strong, independent Americans! Riiiiight....
It's pure FUD. It hits all the hallmarks of the current fearmongering deployed by right-wing conservatives and wanna-be vertical monopolies like Comcast: putting any regulation on the Internet will lower innovation, increase costs, reduce offerings, reduce service and turn the US into a communist concentration camp run by liberals.
Here's why I actually like reading them: only if you know your enemy will you know how to defeat them. I hear these arguments repeated quite often at work (ironically, a web development shop), and it's nice that I know ahead of time why these arguments are wrong and what the counter-arguments are. It's much easier to be convincing if you have the data available from the top of your head about why they're wrong, rather than have to say "I'll send you the link later".
It is regrettable both that ./ has descended to this kind of pandering in order to attract readership and that, judging by most comments in here, they have consequently succeeded in attracting an audience that doesn't take the minimal time necessary to examine the source material provided and come to a conclusion on the actual merits.
/. has descended to not RTFA'ing? For Zombie Jesus' sake, it's a sport here with its own acronym. Ever since, well, day 1. Even a 7-digit UID should know that.
Even if the promise is backed by punishment if they break it, it's still a terrible idea, and there's no way they can cover every bad thing Comcast could do in the promise.
Not only that, but the fines that the FCC would have to levy in order to dissuade Comcast from doing these bad things would be record breaking. They would have to be in the billions of dollars per year of operation. Anything short of that is a win for Comcast. And that's just not going to happen.
Gotta give Comcast credit: they know how to prevent being a commodity provider. It's too bad there's a lot of free-market fundies out there who don't get exactly how bad this would be for actual competition in the ISP and content markets.
Name an industry that you have problems with that isn't regulated.
Wrong question. There isn't a single industry that isn't regulated. It's all a question of degrees.
Why is it the industries that people continuously complain about are the one's that are the most regulated? Is that just a coincidence?
No. It's selection bias. Do you know how much automechanics are regulated? Daycare? Schools?
Absolutely. But that's not going anywhere, not to mention that it comes with its own set of peculiar problems. See the British railway system, for example.
Wow... you are dense, aren't you? In order to have a peering agreement with a provider, you need to be able to accept as much traffic as you send. Which, guess what, needs the same few billion in investment that the peer already has. If you don't, you're hosed. If the backbone provider doesn't want you hooking into their lines (presumably because you're a direct competitor), they won't let you, price be damned. Either way, you pay out the nose. Why? Because the existing telco wants to extract monopoly rents from the market, not the competitive price it might have to settle for if it sells bandwidth to you.
Tell me, you've never worked in a telcom environment, have you?
Setting up an ISP is not particularly expensive.
Really? Then try setting up an ISP without renting out space on anyone's infrastructure. You need a couple of billion dollars before you even hit the last mile problem.
That would require a country that has no government. Which is total anarchy, which doesn't exist anywhere. Nice try though.
No shit. In the meantime, you are stuck with two choices: one that is guaranteed to fuck you now, or one that has a chance to fuck you later. What do you do?
It's pretty simple: in a monopolistic environment, you have power only through the representative process. In a free market, you have more power through your pocket book. Identify what type of market you're in, and the decision is easy.
You clearly didn't pay attention in Econ 101 when they went over what is necessary for a free market, what barriers to entry into that market mean to competition, and where infrastructure fits in when discussing efficient markets.
It's unfortunate that your ignorance seems to be the common opinion of American voters.
They don't want my streaming video to interfere with their other customers' VOIP calls...
That's not what's going to kill the Internet. That's a problem that's easily solved with QoS and prioritizing based on protocol. What they don't want - and will pretty much kill to prevent - is they don't want you to stream video content that competes with their video content. And since the Telcos all got smart and invested in content providers, it is trivial from a technical perspective to implement this.
In China, the free Internet died because the government didn't want the users to watch Tiananmen videos. In the US, the free Internet will die because corporations don't want the users to watch content they're not getting paid for.
It is simply saying not packet dicrimination. So yes there will be regulators but they do not have fiat control, just enforcement responsibilities.
However, the regulation that no packet shall be discriminated against based on its origin requires fiat control. The trick here is that the initial fiat control gives way to only enforcement responsibilities. It's unlikely to be that way, but then again: "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." The price for a near-free Internet will be eternal vigilance for people who will seek permanent fiat control.
The Internet is not going to remain free, regardless of what happens. Either Telcos and content providers integrate to add value to their commoditized dumb pipes and control where users go through caps and channel pricing, or the government regulates what Telcos and ISPs can and cannot do to users. One is the guaranteed effect of a capitalistic system in a market with very high barriers to entry, the other is the result of a population wanting some input on how a market prone to the creation of monopolies.
This means that the argument that a lack of regulation is the same as a free system is a flat-out lie. It necessarily implies that corporations will never engage in monopolistic rent-seeking, which is clearly false.
The only question then is: who gets to control the Internet? A corporation, or a bureaucrat? Furthermore, will control be left to an entity that is guaranteed to create a system that is designed to maximize its profit, or to an entity where the common citizens has even a chance of providing input?
This doesn't mean that any regulation is good. Some regulation will lead to the same result as no regulation. Some will lead to worse results. But there is at least the chance that it will lead to a better result. What's more, other countries have already shown what kind of regulatory environment is more beneficial to users than the one that currently exists in the US. So it's not that it's hard - it just requires some politicians to be afraid of their constituents.
Finally, I'd like to point something out that Americans seem to have a hard time understanding: a corporation is not a person. Furthermore, a corporation behaves like a sociopath. This means that things that benefit a corporation are not the same that benefit society as a whole. Remember that next time a corporate lobbyists argues that what's good for them is good for the country.
Which means you have a local net that doesn't reach beyond suburban limits. In other words, it'd be completely useless.
There's a reason why wireless isn't being used to funnel large traffic around.
You do realize that a spectrum has a bandwidth that is limited by physics? That the spectrum available to private citizens is puny? And that just dropping more wireless receivers/broadcasters into an area with a saturated spectrum does not increase bandwidth?
There's a reason wireless isn't being used to funnel large traffic around.
I'm just wondering what you call the passage of the current Healthcare plan? I mean, some people were calling it the Deathpanel plan.... seems like there was a fight there.