I understand your point. While the competition exists, your example and argument work well. However, the point as I see it isn't whether the ISP can make money using throttling--it is whether it is ok for them to do it either way. In my opinion, if an ISP throttles some company's bandwidth then it doesn't matter if the ISP is making money or not--they are preventing the business from staying in business.
They are minors, and minors don't particularly need to be playing offensive games. If their parents don't have a problem with it, then the parent can easily purchase the game for their child.
I offer the same advice as Penny Arcade. Work at it for a while. It just takes time. Practice showing some maturity. Given a few years of practice--how old are you? 12?--Let's say about 6 years of practice, and you can play these games too!
Thank you Philosophy 101! I'd also like to thank my parents, my agent, all my fans, God... who else... let me consult my notes... ah of course, the Devil.
That's how Rockefeller built Standard Oil. The only difference was that Company A was a national company, and could afford to absorb temporarily local losses. I'm never concerned with net neutrality as it relates to a mom and pop ISP. I'm only concerned when massive companies start throwing their weight around.
Your scenario adds an entire additional layer of expense. That money has to come from somewhere, and I expect that place will be the consumer's pocket. It also accentuates the problem of near-monopoly constructs. A company that provided internet service along with something that USED that service wouldn't need to pay itself to prevent throttling. It can therefore offer the same product for a lower price than a competitor, then raise the rates once competition is eliminated.
You are only half right. Corporations do their taxes exactly like you or I do them. They try to pay as little as possible. Now, just as there are loopholes for individuals, there are even more loopholes for corporations. Bad accounting is enabled by voluminous tax code filled with special cases and exceptions. It is remarkable to see the wild difference between what any Fortune 500 company reports on its taxes and what it reports to Wall Street.
Those states are also warmer than usual. Actually, that may be helping the snowfall. When it is too cold you won't get (as much) snow. From the National Climatic Data Center's report:
After a cold start to December, the persistence of spring-like temperatures in the eastern two-thirds of the country during the final two to three weeks of 2006 made this the fourth warmest December on record in the U.S., and helped bring the annual average to record high levels. For example, the monthly average temperature in Boston was 8F above average, and in Minneapolis-St Paul, the temperature was 17F above average for the last three weeks of December. Even in Denver, which had its third snowiest December on record and endured a major blizzard that brought the city to a standstill during the holiday travel season, the temperature for the month was 1.4F warmer than the 1971-2000 average.
You probably end up pissing them out or something equally boring. As far as unbound particles go, if they stay in your bloodstream forever, that would be a good thing. No new tumors.
It doesn't matter. The point is to move to everything to metric regardless of current unit. I live in the U.S. though, so in my head it was U.S. gallons.
Hopefully gallons to quarts in gasoline purchases. With mixed Imperial and Metric units on a car's dashboard, it will be a simple step to move to kilometers for highway signs. After that's been in place for a couple years, maybe we'll finally have gotten on the freaking bandwagon universally. The next question is if we'll ever figure out that a billion isn't actually a thousand million.
I can see two likely results from this phenomenon. First, impulse purchases will be for a relatively low amount of money. People are less reluctant to part with a couple bucks. Secondly, larger purchases will be planned. The planning allows the purchaser to justify releasing the larger amount money.
I'd like to know if this extends to purchases made with others' money. Does a company purchase agent's brain operate the same way? Several jokes have been made in earlier threads about women buying shoes with the posters' credit card--does this effect still occur when the purchaser isn't personally responsible for the spending?
OH. I missed the subject line. "This begs the question..." In this case, its a bit strange that the OP would point out his or her own logical fallacy, but I take your point that there wasn't a need to criticize his use of the phrase itself. This conveniently shows how frequently the more recent usage is used in a fallacious manner, though I acknowledge that there are non-fallacious constructions.
From Wikipedia: "Today, the phrase is also frequently seen in a different usage with the meaning 'raise the question'. In academic contexts this use is rare and widely regarded as incorrect, but it has nevertheless become very common in the news media." I agree this ain't no academic context, but it is clear that the parent poster's advice to "learn what 'begging the question' means" is in reference to the logical fallacy, since that is what the linked source is about. It doesn't matter that there are now two meanings. The original meaning is still a valid meaning. Further, the OP actually committed the logical fallacy of begging the question.
I don't think your argument holds up as presented if you aren't cherry-picking your people. Basically, by presenting Bush's selections in the worst possibly light you are creating a Strawman Argument. (Though I agree that there have been many poor picks; just look Myers for the Supreme Court.) I'm not arguing with your conclusion so much as how you get there. Plus congresspersons select their own staff, so it isn't a true hierarchy down from the Oval Office.
I agree that there are partisan trends at Slashdot, but there are vocal proponents of both sides of nearly every issue. If you truly think that every article is slanted, biased, and an utter joke, then I must ask you: Why are you even here?
The fact that this was a fairly highly-placed politician is the element that makes this a news-worthy story. If Joe Sixpack solicited a hacker to change his grades, it wouldn't hit Slashdot. Whereas if a CEO, politician, new anchor, or similar public figure does the same, it becomes reportable.
Again, partisan shenanigans hurt us all. If every instance of corruption was equally derided and every mistake similarly acknowledged, the country would be in better shape. Instead, we have a mass of proles who are disenfranchised by politicization of stuff that doesn't matter and distracted from the things that do matter. Similarly, we have a mass of people interested in politics, but blinded by their partisan attitudes.
Corruption should always be condemned. It disturbs me that you are willing to ignore the actions involved because of partisanship. That said, I'd say this posting has less to due with politics than with technological naivety. Basically it was posted so that we can all have a good laugh at the unfortunate victim.
I think a significant turning point in politics can be identified when the focus of power turns from achieving a vision for the future and becomes a focus on retaining power. At this point, directing principles tranform from true goals and become convenient power-words. This is true of all politicized environments, not merely the government. Intellectual dishonesty, word games, twisting of the facts, and similar sophistry are all symptoms of this unwillingness to adapt to new information and circumstances.
Please don't confuse the practice of science with the use of scientists' results.
I don't think I was confusing these. By "co-opt", I meant that some scientific discoveries were and are either reinterpreted or suppressed based on those holding power.
Science has been a contentious subject throughout history. Whereas in the past science was misused and constrained by the church, today it has been co-opted by politics. Scientific progress has continued nevertheless. I believe that scientists will continue to discover new and exciting things about the physical world regardless of the representation or supression of their discoveries. This is especially true when viewed from a global perspective.
As a counterpoint, when I think "Fallout" I don't think of a good combat system. Rather, I think of a hilarious game with a highly customizable character system. I think the character system was its strongest point.
Slashdot Mirror
I understand your point. While the competition exists, your example and argument work well. However, the point as I see it isn't whether the ISP can make money using throttling--it is whether it is ok for them to do it either way. In my opinion, if an ISP throttles some company's bandwidth then it doesn't matter if the ISP is making money or not--they are preventing the business from staying in business.
They are minors, and minors don't particularly need to be playing offensive games. If their parents don't have a problem with it, then the parent can easily purchase the game for their child.
I offer the same advice as Penny Arcade. Work at it for a while. It just takes time. Practice showing some maturity. Given a few years of practice--how old are you? 12?--Let's say about 6 years of practice, and you can play these games too!
Thank you Philosophy 101! I'd also like to thank my parents, my agent, all my fans, God... who else... let me consult my notes... ah of course, the Devil.
That's how Rockefeller built Standard Oil. The only difference was that Company A was a national company, and could afford to absorb temporarily local losses. I'm never concerned with net neutrality as it relates to a mom and pop ISP. I'm only concerned when massive companies start throwing their weight around.
Your scenario adds an entire additional layer of expense. That money has to come from somewhere, and I expect that place will be the consumer's pocket. It also accentuates the problem of near-monopoly constructs. A company that provided internet service along with something that USED that service wouldn't need to pay itself to prevent throttling. It can therefore offer the same product for a lower price than a competitor, then raise the rates once competition is eliminated.
You are only half right. Corporations do their taxes exactly like you or I do them. They try to pay as little as possible. Now, just as there are loopholes for individuals, there are even more loopholes for corporations. Bad accounting is enabled by voluminous tax code filled with special cases and exceptions. It is remarkable to see the wild difference between what any Fortune 500 company reports on its taxes and what it reports to Wall Street.
Kihjin, your sig is hilarious.
You probably end up pissing them out or something equally boring. As far as unbound particles go, if they stay in your bloodstream forever, that would be a good thing. No new tumors.
It doesn't matter. The point is to move to everything to metric regardless of current unit. I live in the U.S. though, so in my head it was U.S. gallons.
Hopefully gallons to quarts in gasoline purchases. With mixed Imperial and Metric units on a car's dashboard, it will be a simple step to move to kilometers for highway signs. After that's been in place for a couple years, maybe we'll finally have gotten on the freaking bandwagon universally. The next question is if we'll ever figure out that a billion isn't actually a thousand million.
I can see two likely results from this phenomenon. First, impulse purchases will be for a relatively low amount of money. People are less reluctant to part with a couple bucks. Secondly, larger purchases will be planned. The planning allows the purchaser to justify releasing the larger amount money.
I'd like to know if this extends to purchases made with others' money. Does a company purchase agent's brain operate the same way? Several jokes have been made in earlier threads about women buying shoes with the posters' credit card--does this effect still occur when the purchaser isn't personally responsible for the spending?
Well put. This insightful perspective is missing from the earlier, busier threads.
OH. I missed the subject line. "This begs the question..." In this case, its a bit strange that the OP would point out his or her own logical fallacy, but I take your point that there wasn't a need to criticize his use of the phrase itself. This conveniently shows how frequently the more recent usage is used in a fallacious manner, though I acknowledge that there are non-fallacious constructions.
From Wikipedia: "Today, the phrase is also frequently seen in a different usage with the meaning 'raise the question'. In academic contexts this use is rare and widely regarded as incorrect, but it has nevertheless become very common in the news media." I agree this ain't no academic context, but it is clear that the parent poster's advice to "learn what 'begging the question' means" is in reference to the logical fallacy, since that is what the linked source is about. It doesn't matter that there are now two meanings. The original meaning is still a valid meaning. Further, the OP actually committed the logical fallacy of begging the question.
I don't think your argument holds up as presented if you aren't cherry-picking your people. Basically, by presenting Bush's selections in the worst possibly light you are creating a Strawman Argument. (Though I agree that there have been many poor picks; just look Myers for the Supreme Court.) I'm not arguing with your conclusion so much as how you get there. Plus congresspersons select their own staff, so it isn't a true hierarchy down from the Oval Office.
He's a victim, just not an innocent victim. I intended that to be read "victim" in the same way that a drug runner might be the victim of a FBI sting.
I agree that there are partisan trends at Slashdot, but there are vocal proponents of both sides of nearly every issue. If you truly think that every article is slanted, biased, and an utter joke, then I must ask you: Why are you even here?
The fact that this was a fairly highly-placed politician is the element that makes this a news-worthy story. If Joe Sixpack solicited a hacker to change his grades, it wouldn't hit Slashdot. Whereas if a CEO, politician, new anchor, or similar public figure does the same, it becomes reportable.
Again, partisan shenanigans hurt us all. If every instance of corruption was equally derided and every mistake similarly acknowledged, the country would be in better shape. Instead, we have a mass of proles who are disenfranchised by politicization of stuff that doesn't matter and distracted from the things that do matter. Similarly, we have a mass of people interested in politics, but blinded by their partisan attitudes.
Begging the question is a logical fallacy. I'm not sure what you were babbling about...
Corruption should always be condemned. It disturbs me that you are willing to ignore the actions involved because of partisanship. That said, I'd say this posting has less to due with politics than with technological naivety. Basically it was posted so that we can all have a good laugh at the unfortunate victim.
I think a significant turning point in politics can be identified when the focus of power turns from achieving a vision for the future and becomes a focus on retaining power. At this point, directing principles tranform from true goals and become convenient power-words. This is true of all politicized environments, not merely the government. Intellectual dishonesty, word games, twisting of the facts, and similar sophistry are all symptoms of this unwillingness to adapt to new information and circumstances.
Science has been a contentious subject throughout history. Whereas in the past science was misused and constrained by the church, today it has been co-opted by politics. Scientific progress has continued nevertheless. I believe that scientists will continue to discover new and exciting things about the physical world regardless of the representation or supression of their discoveries. This is especially true when viewed from a global perspective.
And you don't want to get hit by a Pak Protector. (Nice username.)
As a counterpoint, when I think "Fallout" I don't think of a good combat system. Rather, I think of a hilarious game with a highly customizable character system. I think the character system was its strongest point.