You are technically correct. The best kind of correct. I suppose my joke kinda falls apart due to the fact that I can't name a major provider of tinfoil off the top of my head.
I don't think you can. In the example of J2ME, the ideas behind the language may be fine, but if you have to run it on a bunch of low powered devices, each with their own, different, buggy version of the API, its not going to be a good thing.
Resistive touchscreens suck, because most of the ones being used are the cheap ones, that you have to actually push down to register your touch. People don't want to do that.
Given that you made the allegation that those fighting for NN are those pushing for the Fairness Doctrine, the onus is on you to present examples. And while you might be able to find some fringe person claiming that, you'd be hard pressed to find someone as mainstream on the left pushing it, as those on the right claiming they're trying to bring it back.
I have to say, while I might not agree completely with Sen Rockefeller, I see where he's coming from. If you are going to call yourself a News network, you should be held to a higher standard, doing everything you can to make sure that what you broadcast is factually sound, and not just opinion. Ideally, this would be simple, but in practice, it would be almost prohibitively difficult.
Yeah, won't really happen with power. Pretty much everyone needs to buy electricity. Most people would have one or two power plants near them. Odds are, they're just going to match prices with each other.
Ummm, no. That is the definition of "free market." As in, free to do whatever to screw over the customer. You forget, for the "free market" to lower prices and stuff, requires competition, and perfect information.
No, you're wrong. Buying an iPhone or a Droid has nothing to do with Net Neutrality. Openness of the device has nothing to do with openness of the net connection. Also, name one "open" competitor to Facebook back in the day.
Fuck you. Fuck your stupid, "If we don't worship the corporations, and blow them at every opportunity, then maybe they will grow angry and take their precious scraps with them," mentality. That is bullshit.
NO, a huge part of the barrier to entry is the massive costs needed to get started, which have nothing to do with regulation. That, and the costs of tearing up the roads.
Not true. There's nothing saying that the company that runs the lines has to offer services. In fact, it shouldn't. The company that runs the lines should be completely split from any kind of content.
Deregulation almost never means an end to monopolies. In fact, it usually means much more entrenched monopolies. If you really want to make a difference, reinstate the mandatory line sharing, strike down any and all local franchise agreements, and not only legalize, but encourage municipalities to build their own fiber networks.
Slashdot Mirror
You are technically correct. The best kind of correct. I suppose my joke kinda falls apart due to the fact that I can't name a major provider of tinfoil off the top of my head.
It is possible that the DoD has a separate service contract with Sony to specifically allow this sort of thing.
If you want to be a game-changer you HAVE to be able to sell to the entire world.
Says who? Mint.com was a game changer in the personal finance department, and yet, they only worked in the US.
And Reynolds Wrap isn't interested in becoming the only thing you can make tinfoil hats out of. Yet
The USA.
I don't think you can. In the example of J2ME, the ideas behind the language may be fine, but if you have to run it on a bunch of low powered devices, each with their own, different, buggy version of the API, its not going to be a good thing.
Portable tends to mean platforms from more than one vendor.
Resistive touchscreens suck, because most of the ones being used are the cheap ones, that you have to actually push down to register your touch. People don't want to do that.
Ummm, that would be an example of hardware fragmentation, there.
They were compelled to comply with the terms of the license. Which is the point behind the suits, not to get money.
Since when are DVI and HDMI "obscure"?
And those who come from poor families, who can't qualify for loans, or who's family won't co-sign? What about them?
[Citation Needed]
Given that you made the allegation that those fighting for NN are those pushing for the Fairness Doctrine, the onus is on you to present examples. And while you might be able to find some fringe person claiming that, you'd be hard pressed to find someone as mainstream on the left pushing it, as those on the right claiming they're trying to bring it back.
No, just no. The only ones mentioning the Fairness Doctrine are those that claim that the left is trying to bring it back.
I have to say, while I might not agree completely with Sen Rockefeller, I see where he's coming from. If you are going to call yourself a News network, you should be held to a higher standard, doing everything you can to make sure that what you broadcast is factually sound, and not just opinion. Ideally, this would be simple, but in practice, it would be almost prohibitively difficult.
Hey, as long as you doing hurt kittens or block WikiLeaks, you should be ok.
Yeah, won't really happen with power. Pretty much everyone needs to buy electricity. Most people would have one or two power plants near them. Odds are, they're just going to match prices with each other.
Ummm, no. That is the definition of "free market." As in, free to do whatever to screw over the customer. You forget, for the "free market" to lower prices and stuff, requires competition, and perfect information.
Wouldn't that require every power station building its own lines to houses, or at least to the neighborhood?
No, you're wrong. Buying an iPhone or a Droid has nothing to do with Net Neutrality. Openness of the device has nothing to do with openness of the net connection. Also, name one "open" competitor to Facebook back in the day.
Fuck you. Fuck your stupid, "If we don't worship the corporations, and blow them at every opportunity, then maybe they will grow angry and take their precious scraps with them," mentality. That is bullshit.
NO, a huge part of the barrier to entry is the massive costs needed to get started, which have nothing to do with regulation. That, and the costs of tearing up the roads.
Not true. There's nothing saying that the company that runs the lines has to offer services. In fact, it shouldn't. The company that runs the lines should be completely split from any kind of content.
Deregulation almost never means an end to monopolies. In fact, it usually means much more entrenched monopolies. If you really want to make a difference, reinstate the mandatory line sharing, strike down any and all local franchise agreements, and not only legalize, but encourage municipalities to build their own fiber networks.