How do you KNOW that will happen, since it has not? The reality is that if it DID happen people wouldn't use those services, they would use other services. Even though the choice of ISP's in America sucks there IS still some degree of choice for most people, especially now that using a cell connection for internet is feasible.
What rock have you been under? The idea of NN has come about due to the fact that ISPs and other parties deeply interested in controlling our the net have shown great interest in doing just that. And no, there are not enough choices that people would "just switch". It will end with people dropping use of the net completely, or having to choose the lesser of evils, or as I mentioned, spend more money on multiple ISP accounts. None of those options is really acceptable. And cell connection for internet? Please. Most of the "data" connections that have been available for ages have been capable of much greater speeds, but hey, guess what? The tech and capability was sat upon, and has remained pretty slow by comparison.
You are all trying to prevent against a mythical monster that would have and should have come upon us by now. Until you can explain why it has not, you have no business screwing over the internet that until now has worked just fine, thank you very much. Otherwise you add WAY more potential for greta harm to befall the internet in your rush to put reigns over it and hand them off to Washington.
Mythical? There you go showing us that you live under a rock somewhere far away from reality. And I like how you simply assert that enforcing a simple law stating that the internet is to be left the hell alone is somehow "screwing it over". (Redundant) Newsflash! Plenty of large companies and other groups have shown great interest in bilking Joe Internet User for more money in order to keep his connection or access to any and all sites from being screwed with in one way or another. Take a look at the comment I made here in that "NN - Threat or Menace" piece: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1760092&cid=33310282
If something like Net Neutrality comes to pass, I am going to work my ass off to insure that every single controlling interest does in fact get the controls they desire over your network traffic, so that you can feel as early and as much as possible the full impact of the choice you have made. RIAA filtering? I'm first in line to write comments in support of same. Blocking all torrent traffic? I'll stand outside picketing for the cameras in response. ISP's required to do deep packet inspection and forward right to whoever wants to examine them for infringement or illegal uses? Hell, I'll deliver those packets by hand.
Only by revealing at once the full amount of pain you are about to impose on every internet user in the U.S., can we all avoid the boiled frog syndrome and get over this phase of ignorance that regulation is in any way helpful to customers.
And here you show yourself to be a complete moron, *and* a sensationalist. Bravo. Also, take a moment to think how everything you said in that last block of nonsense would apply in reverse to being a world of pain heaped upon yourself, when folks like you just keep your heads in the sand pretending everything is all hunky dory, until the hammer comes down and suddenly your internet is being filtered and throttled and pretty much destroyed from how it is now. Clearly you do not see the writing on the wall, and haven't learned from every other pooch screw that has come from not at least creating some regulation against large companies which have only themselves and their shareholders at interest from bleeding Joe Consumer as much as they can without killing him.
Why is having the way things work as they do today is not sound? What is the ACTUAL (not potential) problem with the way thi
Okay smart guy, what do you propose then? Because we all know that without some kind of intervention, all ISPs will begin to make alliances of their own and filter this and that, and don't you dare say anything about the customer "choice" because we all know how little choice there really is among ISPs. If you want cable internet, you're stuck with whoever rules your service area. DSL is only slightly more open to choice, and is much slower than cable in almost all aspects. Fiber is limited to FiOS and Uverse. Not many wifi only ISPs to choose from either.
So again I ask, what's your brilliant plan here? Do we all just tuck our heads between our legs and kiss our internet goodbye? Spend more money buying from different ISPs so we can switch connections based on whoever provides the fastest service to the sites we want to see?
Here's an idea, how about naysayers such as yourself STFU until you've got a sound solution, instead of just decrying the evils of regulation? If you aren't part of the solution, then you're clearly just part of the problem.
...here, all I can say is that it makes the RIAA look incredibly dumb to try to speak of "neutrality" while at the same time asking for provisions that limit the use of the internet in any way. A quick look at the definition of neutrality on M-W Online shows that basically means taking a hands-off approach. What the RIAA asks is not a hands-off approach at all. And quite frankly, they should know better than to even pretend to speak about things in terms of "good intentions" as nothing they do has anyone's intentions in mind but their own and their shareholders.
I see a lot of arguing over what "Net Neutrality" is, and how to define it. Really, I don't think it's very hard at all, and doesn't require a wall of text only the most veteran lawyers can understand. To me, "Net Neutrality" means this:
Absolutely zero regulation of the internet, or what is sent over it. No blocking, no filtering, no slowing down of traffic, no pandering to higher paying customers. Data is made up of packets, and all packets are equal.
I don't think this is a toughy by any stretch, and any attempts to over-analyze it or come to any other definition is, IMO, an attempt to create more problems.
I didn't say it did. But ISPs aren't the only ones playing that game. It's a typical sales thing, and it isn't new. So why is everyone suddenly up in arms about it now?
Your argument is flawed. The electric companies *can't* let the AC vary, because things only work at the specified voltage. The same cannot be said for broadband connections. Besides that, none of your examples has *ever* used the "up to" business. However, I bet your cars speedometer displays that you can go "up to" a certain speed, but I doubt it actually could get that fast without help or a long stretch of road (provided it doesn't have a limiter in the ECU).
That ISPs use the "up to" line is nothing new, they've been doing it for years. The maximum may be what you are provisioned, but if you pay attention to the paperwork you sign, you will find they only guarantee up to a percentage of that provision. For example, Frontier, who provides DSL under the Frontier name and a few others, only guarantees 70% of provision. So it you had a 10Mbit line provision, you're only guaranteed to get 7Mbps. If it goes below that, then there is an issue and they will send out a tech to check things out. But as long as your connection doesn't test under 7Mbit and isn't showing frequent disconnections or packet loss, then you're fine.
Quite frankly I don't understand how it has been allowed for things like genes and sequences and such to be patented, and I think the notion that such things can be patented is ridiculous. But who am I, other some peon somewhere, right?
You sir, are a moron. The choice to not use a service is most definitely a choice on the technical side of things, but if your choice is "internet via evil corp that controls how you get that service" or "no service" that really isn't much of a choice at all. Lesser evils is never a good way of having things work.
So do us all a favor, and get back under your bridge until you've thought things out a bit further, mkay?
I think this is a good approach, personally. A much more significant and lasting punishment for the crime.
Question is, how long to punish? I think it would only be fair to force them to sell at a lowered price for the same duration they sold at jacked up prices. If they go out of business, tough shit. Should have thought about the consequences of the actions.
And yes, everyone who bought an LCD during those dates should either receive a reimbursement equal in % to what they were overcharged, or receive a coupon for that % off a purchase of any new LCD from that company that they buy.
No more light slaps on the back of the hands, corporations need a solid punch in the gut for pulling stunts like this.
SO you not caring somehow means nobody should care?
I still play and greatly enjoy many of the games I played as a kid, and indeed they give me just as much joy now as they did then.
Frankly *I* don't give a shit if one of my ignorant younger siblings/relatives doesn't give a shit, he was weened on a fucking Xbox or PS2, so of course he not going to have any appreciation for how awesome the NES was. That doesn't make the NES or other older games not worth appreciating just the same.
To sum it up your whole argument is flawed. Come back when logic isn't eluding you.
I had one, but it got stolen from me. Luckily I had the chance to play games on it before that. I was 15 in a group home when I got it, it had been left behind in a shed by someone. I had it in my possession for maybe 2 years. Had 6 or 7 of the games with it, and 3 controllers. The game I liked the most was some Wizard type game and you shot a beam out at enemies to clear maps. Was kind of Pac Man-ish. Was an awesome system for what it was, even though at the time The Playstation and Saturn were the newest systems out.
I did see one on eBay ages ago, but I've only found games and controllers since.
How in the fsck was that moderated as insightful? It's retarded.
People go to websites for the content, *not* the ads. So instead of saying "If you don't want to see the ad, don't go to the site." which is horribly broken logic, it should be thought "If you want your ads to be seen, don't clusterfuck the content." Content is #1. Advertising is #2. Any kind of arguing that puts the adverts first is suspect, IMO.
I wholeheartedly agree with this, strictly in the "load after" sense. I cannot stand it when the content I am interested won't load because some overworked ad server is stalled.
That said, I'm also an "asshole" who blocks ads. Why? Because I don't care for the way they're shoved in my face constantly. I'm sorry, but I don't care how much you polish it, a turd is a turd, and I want nothing to do with it. Same goes for most ads. I really don't care about the product or service, and shoving it in my face with interstitial ads or flash pop-overs or whatever only makes me hate your brand even more.
I'm tired of being demonized when it's the advert companies who don't have a clue. Get it together, stop bludgeoning me with your dreck, and I might stop blocking it.
Yeah, it's happened a few times with my 1st gen enV as well. Definitely not something unique to Android, I'd say it's a flaw in Verizon's software, or the network.
Really? Then pray tell, why do torrents on TPB still have "tracker.thepiratebay.org/announce" attached to them? And this from a torrent uploaded on 6-16-2010.
For someone trying so desperately to sound smart while making me sound dumb, you're failing at an incredible rate.
I s'pose if you want to be a pedantic nerd, then yes, it's an "indexer". They also have (a) tracker(s), and run tracker software to help track what they have indexed, and to track stuff uploaded by registered users.
From Wikipedia:
On 7 December 2007, The Pirate Bay finished the move from Hypercube to Opentracker as its BitTorrent tracking software, also enabling the use of the UDP tracker protocol for which Hypercube lacked support.[17] This allowed UDP multicast to be used to synchronize the multiple servers with each other much faster than before.[18] The Pirate Bay also announced that their servers would support SSL encryption, in response to Sweden's new wiretapping law.[19] Opentracker is free software.[20]
On 19 January 2009 The Pirate Bay launched IPv6 support for their tracker system, using an IPv6 only version of Opentracker.[21]
Regardless of what you may or may not need to be registered for, my point remains valid that registering/logging in to a tracker to download files of an illegitimate nature exposes you to risks and is therefore a retarded idea. I mean seriously, what next, logging into FOSI to download warez? Yeah, sounds like a great idea.
...is why having to register for a tracker is utterly retarded. Having any kind of identifying info linked to any piracy is just dumb. Yes I know IP addresses and all that, but folks can use proxies. But a proxy doesn't stop anyone form gleaning your true whereabouts via cookies and other login related stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
What rock have you been under? The idea of NN has come about due to the fact that ISPs and other parties deeply interested in controlling our the net have shown great interest in doing just that. And no, there are not enough choices that people would "just switch". It will end with people dropping use of the net completely, or having to choose the lesser of evils, or as I mentioned, spend more money on multiple ISP accounts. None of those options is really acceptable. And cell connection for internet? Please. Most of the "data" connections that have been available for ages have been capable of much greater speeds, but hey, guess what? The tech and capability was sat upon, and has remained pretty slow by comparison.
Mythical? There you go showing us that you live under a rock somewhere far away from reality. And I like how you simply assert that enforcing a simple law stating that the internet is to be left the hell alone is somehow "screwing it over". (Redundant) Newsflash! Plenty of large companies and other groups have shown great interest in bilking Joe Internet User for more money in order to keep his connection or access to any and all sites from being screwed with in one way or another. Take a look at the comment I made here in that "NN - Threat or Menace" piece: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1760092&cid=33310282
And here you show yourself to be a complete moron, *and* a sensationalist. Bravo. Also, take a moment to think how everything you said in that last block of nonsense would apply in reverse to being a world of pain heaped upon yourself, when folks like you just keep your heads in the sand pretending everything is all hunky dory, until the hammer comes down and suddenly your internet is being filtered and throttled and pretty much destroyed from how it is now. Clearly you do not see the writing on the wall, and haven't learned from every other pooch screw that has come from not at least creating some regulation against large companies which have only themselves and their shareholders at interest from bleeding Joe Consumer as much as they can without killing him.
What is a Drouge? Perhaps that should say drogue instead? $lt;/Grammar nazi$gt;
Okay smart guy, what do you propose then? Because we all know that without some kind of intervention, all ISPs will begin to make alliances of their own and filter this and that, and don't you dare say anything about the customer "choice" because we all know how little choice there really is among ISPs. If you want cable internet, you're stuck with whoever rules your service area. DSL is only slightly more open to choice, and is much slower than cable in almost all aspects. Fiber is limited to FiOS and Uverse. Not many wifi only ISPs to choose from either.
So again I ask, what's your brilliant plan here? Do we all just tuck our heads between our legs and kiss our internet goodbye? Spend more money buying from different ISPs so we can switch connections based on whoever provides the fastest service to the sites we want to see?
Here's an idea, how about naysayers such as yourself STFU until you've got a sound solution, instead of just decrying the evils of regulation? If you aren't part of the solution, then you're clearly just part of the problem.
...here, all I can say is that it makes the RIAA look incredibly dumb to try to speak of "neutrality" while at the same time asking for provisions that limit the use of the internet in any way. A quick look at the definition of neutrality on M-W Online shows that basically means taking a hands-off approach. What the RIAA asks is not a hands-off approach at all. And quite frankly, they should know better than to even pretend to speak about things in terms of "good intentions" as nothing they do has anyone's intentions in mind but their own and their shareholders.
Ask someone who was run down by a truck that was on a hill and got bumped into neutral.
What?
I see a lot of arguing over what "Net Neutrality" is, and how to define it. Really, I don't think it's very hard at all, and doesn't require a wall of text only the most veteran lawyers can understand. To me, "Net Neutrality" means this:
Absolutely zero regulation of the internet, or what is sent over it. No blocking, no filtering, no slowing down of traffic, no pandering to higher paying customers. Data is made up of packets, and all packets are equal.
I don't think this is a toughy by any stretch, and any attempts to over-analyze it or come to any other definition is, IMO, an attempt to create more problems.
Yeah, but with Android 2.2 this won't be/isn't an issue since it'll be able to load apps to the SD card and read/write from it instead.
"That doesn't make it right"
I didn't say it did. But ISPs aren't the only ones playing that game. It's a typical sales thing, and it isn't new. So why is everyone suddenly up in arms about it now?
Your argument is flawed. The electric companies *can't* let the AC vary, because things only work at the specified voltage. The same cannot be said for broadband connections. Besides that, none of your examples has *ever* used the "up to" business. However, I bet your cars speedometer displays that you can go "up to" a certain speed, but I doubt it actually could get that fast without help or a long stretch of road (provided it doesn't have a limiter in the ECU).
That ISPs use the "up to" line is nothing new, they've been doing it for years. The maximum may be what you are provisioned, but if you pay attention to the paperwork you sign, you will find they only guarantee up to a percentage of that provision. For example, Frontier, who provides DSL under the Frontier name and a few others, only guarantees 70% of provision. So it you had a 10Mbit line provision, you're only guaranteed to get 7Mbps. If it goes below that, then there is an issue and they will send out a tech to check things out. But as long as your connection doesn't test under 7Mbit and isn't showing frequent disconnections or packet loss, then you're fine.
Now all we need is for this to become the norm.
Quite frankly I don't understand how it has been allowed for things like genes and sequences and such to be patented, and I think the notion that such things can be patented is ridiculous. But who am I, other some peon somewhere, right?
You sir, are a moron. The choice to not use a service is most definitely a choice on the technical side of things, but if your choice is "internet via evil corp that controls how you get that service" or "no service" that really isn't much of a choice at all. Lesser evils is never a good way of having things work.
So do us all a favor, and get back under your bridge until you've thought things out a bit further, mkay?
I lol'd. Thank you sir.
I think this is a good approach, personally. A much more significant and lasting punishment for the crime.
Question is, how long to punish? I think it would only be fair to force them to sell at a lowered price for the same duration they sold at jacked up prices. If they go out of business, tough shit. Should have thought about the consequences of the actions.
And yes, everyone who bought an LCD during those dates should either receive a reimbursement equal in % to what they were overcharged, or receive a coupon for that % off a purchase of any new LCD from that company that they buy.
No more light slaps on the back of the hands, corporations need a solid punch in the gut for pulling stunts like this.
My first thought after reading the article was "Since when has Grimace been a villain?"
SO you not caring somehow means nobody should care?
I still play and greatly enjoy many of the games I played as a kid, and indeed they give me just as much joy now as they did then.
Frankly *I* don't give a shit if one of my ignorant younger siblings/relatives doesn't give a shit, he was weened on a fucking Xbox or PS2, so of course he not going to have any appreciation for how awesome the NES was. That doesn't make the NES or other older games not worth appreciating just the same.
To sum it up your whole argument is flawed. Come back when logic isn't eluding you.
Where do you live? We could meet up. ;)
I had one, but it got stolen from me. Luckily I had the chance to play games on it before that. I was 15 in a group home when I got it, it had been left behind in a shed by someone. I had it in my possession for maybe 2 years. Had 6 or 7 of the games with it, and 3 controllers. The game I liked the most was some Wizard type game and you shot a beam out at enemies to clear maps. Was kind of Pac Man-ish. Was an awesome system for what it was, even though at the time The Playstation and Saturn were the newest systems out.
I did see one on eBay ages ago, but I've only found games and controllers since.
You clearly suck at logic.
"wealthy, sophisticated, (and) highly educated" = elite.
"while they scored terribly in the areas of altruism and kindness" = selfish.
Nice try though.
How in the fsck was that moderated as insightful? It's retarded.
People go to websites for the content, *not* the ads. So instead of saying "If you don't want to see the ad, don't go to the site." which is horribly broken logic, it should be thought "If you want your ads to be seen, don't clusterfuck the content." Content is #1. Advertising is #2. Any kind of arguing that puts the adverts first is suspect, IMO.
I wholeheartedly agree with this, strictly in the "load after" sense. I cannot stand it when the content I am interested won't load because some overworked ad server is stalled.
That said, I'm also an "asshole" who blocks ads. Why? Because I don't care for the way they're shoved in my face constantly. I'm sorry, but I don't care how much you polish it, a turd is a turd, and I want nothing to do with it. Same goes for most ads. I really don't care about the product or service, and shoving it in my face with interstitial ads or flash pop-overs or whatever only makes me hate your brand even more.
I'm tired of being demonized when it's the advert companies who don't have a clue. Get it together, stop bludgeoning me with your dreck, and I might stop blocking it.
This showed up on The Awesomer like 3 or 4 days ago.
That was exactly my first thought upon reading that bit. "Legitimate" is incredibly open to interpretation.
Yeah, it's happened a few times with my 1st gen enV as well. Definitely not something unique to Android, I'd say it's a flaw in Verizon's software, or the network.
Really? Then pray tell, why do torrents on TPB still have "tracker.thepiratebay.org/announce" attached to them? And this from a torrent uploaded on 6-16-2010.
For someone trying so desperately to sound smart while making me sound dumb, you're failing at an incredible rate.
I s'pose if you want to be a pedantic nerd, then yes, it's an "indexer". They also have (a) tracker(s), and run tracker software to help track what they have indexed, and to track stuff uploaded by registered users.
From Wikipedia:
Regardless of what you may or may not need to be registered for, my point remains valid that registering/logging in to a tracker to download files of an illegitimate nature exposes you to risks and is therefore a retarded idea. I mean seriously, what next, logging into FOSI to download warez? Yeah, sounds like a great idea.
...is why having to register for a tracker is utterly retarded. Having any kind of identifying info linked to any piracy is just dumb. Yes I know IP addresses and all that, but folks can use proxies. But a proxy doesn't stop anyone form gleaning your true whereabouts via cookies and other login related stuff.