I find the blurb difficult to understand with its talk of IPs winning and losing.
From the article:
Not surprisingly, they found that broadband service providers were the ones to gain the most from ending net neutrality because they could collect fees from content providers. The content providers such as Yahoo! and Google, in turn, would be the biggest losers.
Consumers will "win" if their favorite online provider is the one paying a fee to the telephone or cable company because it comes with a guarantee that its site would have the opportunity to load faster than its competitors, Cheng said. But those consumers who prefer a content provider that paid no such fee will "lose" in having to endure slower service, he said.
However, that implies there are both winners and losers. I'm not sure why the submitter claims that "everyone looses [sic]."
According to wikipedia, the President's salary traditionally serves as the cap for all government employees, and is currently near half a million dollars. That said, most everyone who runs for President is already independently wealthy, so I don't think pay is a major concern.
A more appropriate question -- given who we are talking about -- would perhaps be, "isn't it a power cut?"
Slashdot Mirror
Link here: http://www.kongregate.com/games/ArmorGames/achievement-unlocked
According to wikipedia, the President's salary traditionally serves as the cap for all government employees, and is currently near half a million dollars. That said, most everyone who runs for President is already independently wealthy, so I don't think pay is a major concern.
A more appropriate question -- given who we are talking about -- would perhaps be, "isn't it a power cut?"
Anyone remember Kitty Genovese? That was a lot worse than just slapping.
It's called the "bystander effect" and happens in every country, not just Europe.