Given no restrictions, corporations will rape everyone.
Given no restrictions, you might rape everyone. Thats what we have property rights, contracts, courts and etcetera, for!
Having some governmental restrictions on the corporate mobs is apparently evil, based on your comments.
I am dumbfounded. Do you think bills come out of congress restricting corporations or benefiting the well connected ones in the detriment of everyone else? Are you that naive? Do you think the government will give you whatever the hell you call 'net neutrality'?
Apparently you are the worst kind of libertarian - the kind that believes that people should have the right to abuse others. After all, that's all a corporation is for these days, a shield of liability for scoundrels looking to harm others.
Yes... you got me. I believe people should have the right to abuse others. You saw thru my mask. I am evil incarnate and you are a good person standing for peace, love and a rainbow covered world. *sigh*
No, I'm not surprised. And it was the best thing for the US at that time. Surprised?
Oh well, if you say so. Ok, I'm convinced.
The issue was that the monopoly granted was abused later via "vertical integration." The same as Standard Oil. It wasn't the oil monopoly, as much as the vertical integration that got them the profits and got them into trouble with the government.
Oh, so now it wasn't a monopoly, it was the 'vertical integration'. I see...
Friend, Standard Oil got in trouble with the government because their competitors bid higher for political action against them. Simple as that. The consumers themselves were mighty pleased.
I do not want that. I would never pay an ISP that charged me in that manner.
Me and all the consumers in the market, incidentally, which is why no ISP has ever tried to pull that, and no one ever will.
I'm sorry that you swallow whole bits of FUD spouted by government hacks and corporate shills who can't wait for the opportunity to pass some *insert nice name here* legislation upon which to scribble all sorts of ways to, respectively, fuck with your privacy even more and put into law many more tidbits of corporate welfare.
Of course lying and trying to make it sound like Net Neutrality is wanted by EEEVIL pirates!!!! is always a good way to make a bogus argument.
Ok, you must be referring to the part you quoted. Here's the rest: " (...) I'm not dissing or trying some underhanded trick to denigrate those users, I'm a heavy user myself. I just don't feel I'm entitled to use government force to get things my way."
Well, I guess we have established that your are an intellectually dishonest prick or a lazy ass who stops where wants in the article, unable to control his urge to hit Submit and feel that holier-than-thou righteousness as soon as possible.
I do seriously believe what I just wrote. You know why I won't look up net neutrality? Cause what I will read will be beautiful intentions, not anything that will actually happen in real life.
Central banks are sold on the premise that they'll 'keep prices stable and the currency's purchasing power', FDA-like entities are sold on 'keeping people safe from unsafe drugs and foods'. Do these things happen? Ask the thousands of americans that might be alive today had not some dumb ass bureaucrat with all the wrong incentives in the world decided that beta-blockers were too dangeorus or anyone stupid enough to stuff dollars under their mattress.
As to the concerns you voiced, has ANY service provider done this? Do you honestly think any service provider would be CRAZY to do this?
Nobody would pay for an ISP that charges for your Skype, WoW, MSN and League of Legends packets separately.
I think you missed his point. Even before this Net Neutrality bill ruckus the government was monitoring traffic so in that respect it doesn't change anything. But more importantly it doesn't give the government more control, it states that the ISP cannot prefer one site's traffic or another.
Dude, you're asking them to legislate. That they will do. To think that all they're gonna do is say 'ok, guys, treat every packet as equal, please' is naive to the extreme.
The argument that this stifles competition is mind boggling to me.
The fact that someone would be mind boggled by it in this day and age is mind boggling to ME. Every piece of regulation written in any democratic country in the world is littered with little bits of law that were BOUGHT by corporate interests to benefit them or hurt competitors one way or another.
That is how it works in the real world of politics.
The argument that this stifles competition is mind boggling to me. If you allow them to pick and choose traffic, and can 100% guarantee you that competition will be stifled.
No you can't guarantee that. If they want to pick and choose traffic, thats their choice. Now, if the market for people who wants unrestricted traffic is big enough, all it takes is for ONE competitor to sell an unthrottled monthly plan to win all those customers.
Unfortunately, the kind of user that downloads 500GB very month are a minority. I'm not dissing or trying some underhanded trick to denigrate those users, I'm a heavy user myself. I just don't feel I'm entitled to use government force to get things my way.
And don't forget, they didn't build the infrastructure on their own. The telecoms have taken in billions of dollars of tax payer subsidies and land to build it out, and as such I feel we as tax payers have a right to regulate how they run their lines.
I dont forget that part, friend. But the tax payers won't regulate shit. The corporate interests that bid higher for congressmen will do the regulating, as is the way in America for the last hundred years.
Dude, thats my point. The little privacy and little 'unregulated' aspects that there are will be GONE.
When government starts intercepting traffic, it will do so in broad daylight and nobody will be able to do or say shit about it.
When it starts 'leveling the playfield' by breeding a myriad of regultations, AKA further stifling competition against established players, prices will go up, not down.
As H.L. Mencken once said "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."
I can't really get how so many Slashdotters are rooting for this bullshit legislation like it will be a cure all for the internet.
Ok, providers will be forced to treat torrent downloads as normal traffic, but once the government has that foothold on the internet, it will never let go and you can kiss privacy, anonimity and other basic stuff we take for granted in the now 'unregulated capitalist' internet.
People never learn when it comes to government intervention, it seems.
Unless you are defining inflation/deflation in terms of the money supply not in terms of prices - but that would be retarded in a system with a fixed money supply.
I am, that's what inflation/deflation is. Baloons and money supplies inflate/deflate, not prices, these go up and down for a plethora of reasons, including money supply inflation/deflation.
As for being retarded, well, I'm glad we aren't talking about a system with a fixed money supply, but a system with a lot of different moneys: dollars, euros, yen, yuan, BitCoin and who knows which other moneys people will come up with if this P2P currency fad takes on.
of course deflation will occur, the use of BTC is increasing and if it keeps on increasing when the 21M limit is hit, supply and demand will increase the value of a BTC
If you mean that as more/less of a widget X is produced the price of widget X will decrease/increase in relation to a BTC, then that is just what happens in a market economy. If prices are going down it means the standards of living are rising due to greater productivity, and if prices are increasing it could be due to an increase in demand or a shortfall in supply.
That is not deflation. Deflation is a shrinking money supply, which causes price deflation, i.e. shrinking prices across the board.
Once that limit is reached neither deflation nor inflation will occur. Any price fluctuations in a currency with stable supply will be the result of supply and demand fluctuations.
Which is the point of having a price system in the first place, conveying that information as accurately as possible.
I don't know about that. Government has a way of using 5 hundred people to do a job one person could make. I guess we'll only know if somebody buys the damn things and tries to get them off the ground.
The fact that private enterprise needs to worry about the bottom line just gives them an incentive to try to cut as much corners as possible that NASA just never had.
I wonder if they could make like one of such concentrators. Then multiply them endlessly in wide circle, miles wide, all focusing on just one spot and like, fuse freaking hydrogen.
The San Francisco Chronicle reports that tollbooths and toll collectors, a fixture at the Golden Gate Bridge since it opened in 1937, will be eliminated starting in 2012 as the bridge moves to an all-electronic system, freeing 34 people to do more useful work and saving $19.2 million over the first eight years.
Slashdot Mirror
Given no restrictions, corporations will rape everyone.
Given no restrictions, you might rape everyone. Thats what we have property rights, contracts, courts and etcetera, for!
Having some governmental restrictions on the corporate mobs is apparently evil, based on your comments.
I am dumbfounded. Do you think bills come out of congress restricting corporations or benefiting the well connected ones in the detriment of everyone else? Are you that naive? Do you think the government will give you whatever the hell you call 'net neutrality'?
Apparently you are the worst kind of libertarian - the kind that believes that people should have the right to abuse others. After all, that's all a corporation is for these days, a shield of liability for scoundrels looking to harm others.
Yes... you got me. I believe people should have the right to abuse others. You saw thru my mask. I am evil incarnate and you are a good person standing for peace, love and a rainbow covered world. *sigh*
No, I'm not surprised. And it was the best thing for the US at that time. Surprised?
Oh well, if you say so. Ok, I'm convinced.
The issue was that the monopoly granted was abused later via "vertical integration." The same as Standard Oil. It wasn't the oil monopoly, as much as the vertical integration that got them the profits and got them into trouble with the government.
Oh, so now it wasn't a monopoly, it was the 'vertical integration'. I see...
Friend, Standard Oil got in trouble with the government because their competitors bid higher for political action against them. Simple as that. The consumers themselves were mighty pleased.
Dude, Standard Oil had 64% market share 4 years before it got broken up by the Feds. Hardly a monopoly, let alone massive.
That's a myth. Try again.
I do not want that. I would never pay an ISP that charged me in that manner.
Me and all the consumers in the market, incidentally, which is why no ISP has ever tried to pull that, and no one ever will.
I'm sorry that you swallow whole bits of FUD spouted by government hacks and corporate shills who can't wait for the opportunity to pass some *insert nice name here* legislation upon which to scribble all sorts of ways to, respectively, fuck with your privacy even more and put into law many more tidbits of corporate welfare.
Of course lying and trying to make it sound like Net Neutrality is wanted by EEEVIL pirates!!!! is always a good way to make a bogus argument.
Ok, you must be referring to the part you quoted. Here's the rest: " (...) I'm not dissing or trying some underhanded trick to denigrate those users, I'm a heavy user myself. I just don't feel I'm entitled to use government force to get things my way."
Well, I guess we have established that your are an intellectually dishonest prick or a lazy ass who stops where wants in the article, unable to control his urge to hit Submit and feel that holier-than-thou righteousness as soon as possible.
Hm? A company which had 64% market share just four years before it was broken up by antitrust is a monopoly? I think you struggle with the definition.
I guess we should break up Microsoft into 34 companies. Hell, break Caterpillar up too while you're at it.
Nope. Its not an accepted economic fact. It is a widespread economic myth. Try again.
I do seriously believe what I just wrote. You know why I won't look up net neutrality? Cause what I will read will be beautiful intentions, not anything that will actually happen in real life.
Central banks are sold on the premise that they'll 'keep prices stable and the currency's purchasing power', FDA-like entities are sold on 'keeping people safe from unsafe drugs and foods'. Do these things happen? Ask the thousands of americans that might be alive today had not some dumb ass bureaucrat with all the wrong incentives in the world decided that beta-blockers were too dangeorus or anyone stupid enough to stuff dollars under their mattress.
As to the concerns you voiced, has ANY service provider done this? Do you honestly think any service provider would be CRAZY to do this?
Nobody would pay for an ISP that charges for your Skype, WoW, MSN and League of Legends packets separately.
I think you missed his point. Even before this Net Neutrality bill ruckus the government was monitoring traffic so in that respect it doesn't change anything. But more importantly it doesn't give the government more control, it states that the ISP cannot prefer one site's traffic or another.
Dude, you're asking them to legislate. That they will do. To think that all they're gonna do is say 'ok, guys, treat every packet as equal, please' is naive to the extreme.
The argument that this stifles competition is mind boggling to me.
The fact that someone would be mind boggled by it in this day and age is mind boggling to ME. Every piece of regulation written in any democratic country in the world is littered with little bits of law that were BOUGHT by corporate interests to benefit them or hurt competitors one way or another.
That is how it works in the real world of politics.
The argument that this stifles competition is mind boggling to me. If you allow them to pick and choose traffic, and can 100% guarantee you that competition will be stifled.
No you can't guarantee that. If they want to pick and choose traffic, thats their choice. Now, if the market for people who wants unrestricted traffic is big enough, all it takes is for ONE competitor to sell an unthrottled monthly plan to win all those customers.
Unfortunately, the kind of user that downloads 500GB very month are a minority. I'm not dissing or trying some underhanded trick to denigrate those users, I'm a heavy user myself. I just don't feel I'm entitled to use government force to get things my way.
And don't forget, they didn't build the infrastructure on their own. The telecoms have taken in billions of dollars of tax payer subsidies and land to build it out, and as such I feel we as tax payers have a right to regulate how they run their lines.
I dont forget that part, friend. But the tax payers won't regulate shit. The corporate interests that bid higher for congressmen will do the regulating, as is the way in America for the last hundred years.
Because, while it may not be self evident, history has shown that truly free markets will lead us directly to monopolies.
Name one.
believing that the soulless government monopoly of force can do the same is another form.
Well, 'the way you see it' just needs needs to see a little farther back.
The Federal Government gave that monopoly to the Bell System in 1934. Surprised?
You could just have written "humongous straw men argument littered with ad hominem attacks" and saved your keyboard's life.
Dude, thats my point. The little privacy and little 'unregulated' aspects that there are will be GONE.
When government starts intercepting traffic, it will do so in broad daylight and nobody will be able to do or say shit about it.
When it starts 'leveling the playfield' by breeding a myriad of regultations, AKA further stifling competition against established players, prices will go up, not down.
As H.L. Mencken once said "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."
Lol, I meant kiss it GOODBYE, not just kiss it.
Not that those very nice things about the internet don't deserve kissing.
I can't really get how so many Slashdotters are rooting for this bullshit legislation like it will be a cure all for the internet.
Ok, providers will be forced to treat torrent downloads as normal traffic, but once the government has that foothold on the internet, it will never let go and you can kiss privacy, anonimity and other basic stuff we take for granted in the now 'unregulated capitalist' internet.
People never learn when it comes to government intervention, it seems.
I was just poking fun at the whole Grammies and african-dudes-chanting cartel since Paul Simon introduced the fad.
I love the song and I'm glad it got something.
All you have to do is write some world-music-ish crap with drums and African chanting and you get one. It's like they just can't control themselves.
Not dissing the song, I love it, but somebody gotta call out their bullshit.
Unless you are defining inflation/deflation in terms of the money supply not in terms of prices - but that would be retarded in a system with a fixed money supply.
I am, that's what inflation/deflation is. Baloons and money supplies inflate/deflate, not prices, these go up and down for a plethora of reasons, including money supply inflation/deflation.
As for being retarded, well, I'm glad we aren't talking about a system with a fixed money supply, but a system with a lot of different moneys: dollars, euros, yen, yuan, BitCoin and who knows which other moneys people will come up with if this P2P currency fad takes on.
of course deflation will occur, the use of BTC is increasing and if it keeps on increasing when the 21M limit is hit, supply and demand will increase the value of a BTC
If you mean that as more/less of a widget X is produced the price of widget X will decrease/increase in relation to a BTC, then that is just what happens in a market economy. If prices are going down it means the standards of living are rising due to greater productivity, and if prices are increasing it could be due to an increase in demand or a shortfall in supply.
That is not deflation. Deflation is a shrinking money supply, which causes price deflation, i.e. shrinking prices across the board.
Once that limit is reached neither deflation nor inflation will occur. Any price fluctuations in a currency with stable supply will be the result of supply and demand fluctuations.
Which is the point of having a price system in the first place, conveying that information as accurately as possible.
I don't know about that. Government has a way of using 5 hundred people to do a job one person could make. I guess we'll only know if somebody buys the damn things and tries to get them off the ground.
The fact that private enterprise needs to worry about the bottom line just gives them an incentive to try to cut as much corners as possible that NASA just never had.
I wonder if they could make like one of such concentrators. Then multiply them endlessly in wide circle, miles wide, all focusing on just one spot and like, fuse freaking hydrogen.
That would kick so much ass.
Lol, natural selection, I guess. ;-)
Lol, someone mod this up quick. ;-)
The San Francisco Chronicle reports that tollbooths and toll collectors, a fixture at the Golden Gate Bridge since it opened in 1937, will be eliminated starting in 2012 as the bridge moves to an all-electronic system, freeing 34 people to do more useful work and saving $19.2 million over the first eight years.
Much better way to put it.