Re: Obama says FCC should reclassify internet as a utility
Click here to commit a crime.
As I posited upthread, you want to be culled.
. . .
No I am stating the facts. He wants to be culled and is actively fighting for that. This is evolution at work so he can get his wish.
Evolution makes no excuses for intent with ignorance.
Actually it's just that I am not afraid of people. I think they are mostly the same and I get along with everyone. I believe this helps me see people for who they are instead of who I thought they should be.
It may be comforting to see the world as black and white, good and evil, communists and 1776 patriots. Reality is never so simple, and you do yourself a disservice when you fail to take each person or event as a separate issue.
You seem to fit the profile described by the following two authors, as you seem to think personalities and getting along with other people has anything to do with the issue we are discussing:
http://blog.erratasec.com/2014/11/dont-mistake-masturbation-for-insight.html?showComment=1415915933934#c9120867661116148633
I think I'll take my chances with Obama.
He is the smartest president of my lifetime and i trust him on this.
He is the smartest president of my lifetime and i trust him on this.
As I posited upthread, you want to be culled.
. . .
No I am stating the facts. He wants to be culled and is actively fighting for that. This is evolution at work so he can get his wish.
Evolution makes no excuses for intent with ignorance.
It may be comforting to see the world as black and white, good and evil, communists and 1776 patriots. Reality is never so simple, and you do yourself a disservice when you fail to take each person or event as a separate issue.
You seem to fit the profile described by the following two authors, as you seem to think personalities and getting along with other people has anything to do with the issue we are discussing:
http://blog.erratasec.com/2014/11/dont-mistake-masturbation-for-insight.html?showComment=1415915933934#c9120867661116148633
Quote from: Simon Majou
It is always the same story.
Moron: Some stuff is bad, we need rules !! (or some stuff is good, we want it!)
Intelligent person: Rules implies a ruler. Do you understand all the (bad) consequences of having a ruler ? And why would anyone claim the right to decide for other people ? We should keep the current system, eg negociate issues case by case. The winners & losers will emerge naturally. No need for violence.
Moron: No we want that stuff now !! Shut your mouth!
Moron: Some stuff is bad, we need rules !! (or some stuff is good, we want it!)
Intelligent person: Rules implies a ruler. Do you understand all the (bad) consequences of having a ruler ? And why would anyone claim the right to decide for other people ? We should keep the current system, eg negociate issues case by case. The winners & losers will emerge naturally. No need for violence.
Moron: No we want that stuff now !! Shut your mouth!
Eric S. Raymond's (the progenitor of the term "open source" in the infamous essay "The Cathedral and the Bazaar") past writings about "net neutrality":
Quote
Net neutrality: whats a libertarian to do?
Posted on 2008-11-13 by Eric Raymond
...
Your typical network-neutrality activist is a good-government left-liberal who is instinctively hostile to market-based approaches. These people think, rather, that if they can somehow come up with the right regulatory formula, they can jawbone the government into making the telcos play nice. Theyre ideologically incapable of questioning the assumption that bandwidth is a scarce public good that has to be regulated. They dont get it that complicated regulations favor the incumbent who can afford to darken the sky with lawyers, and they really dont get it about outright regulatory capture, a game at which the telcos are past masters.
Ive spent endless hours trying to point out to these people that their assumptions are fundamentally wrong, and that the only way to break the telco monopoly is to break the scarcity assumptions its based on. That the telecoms regulatorium, far from being what holds the telcos in check, is actually their instrument of control. And that the only battle that actually matters is the one to carve out enough unlicensed spectrum so we can use technologies like ad-hoc networking with UWB to end-run the whole mess until it collapses under its own weight.
They dont get it. They refuse to get it. Ive been on a mailing list for something called the Open Infrastructure Alliance that consisted of three network engineers and a couple dozen organizers; the engineers (even the non-libertarian engineers) all patiently trying to explain why the political attack is a non-starter, and the organizers endlessly rehashing political strategies anyway. Because, well, thats all they know how to do.
In short, the network neutrality crowd is mainly composed of well-meaning fools blinded by their own statism, and consequently serving mainly as useful idiots for the telcos program of ever-more labyrinthine and manipulable regulation. If I were a telco executive, Id be on my knees every night thanking my god(s) for this opposition. Mistake #2 for any libertarian to avoid is backing these clowns.
....
Posted on 2008-11-13 by Eric Raymond
...
Your typical network-neutrality activist is a good-government left-liberal who is instinctively hostile to market-based approaches. These people think, rather, that if they can somehow come up with the right regulatory formula, they can jawbone the government into making the telcos play nice. Theyre ideologically incapable of questioning the assumption that bandwidth is a scarce public good that has to be regulated. They dont get it that complicated regulations favor the incumbent who can afford to darken the sky with lawyers, and they really dont get it about outright regulatory capture, a game at which the telcos are past masters.
Ive spent endless hours trying to point out to these people that their assumptions are fundamentally wrong, and that the only way to break the telco monopoly is to break the scarcity assumptions its based on. That the telecoms regulatorium, far from being what holds the telcos in check, is actually their instrument of control. And that the only battle that actually matters is the one to carve out enough unlicensed spectrum so we can use technologies like ad-hoc networking with UWB to end-run the whole mess until it collapses under its own weight.
They dont get it. They refuse to get it. Ive been on a mailing list for something called the Open Infrastructure Alliance that consisted of three network engineers and a couple dozen organizers; the engineers (even the non-libertarian engineers) all patiently trying to explain why the political attack is a non-starter, and the organizers endlessly rehashing political strategies anyway. Because, well, thats all they know how to do.
In short, the network neutrality crowd is mainly composed of well-meaning fools blinded by their own statism, and consequently serving mainly as useful idiots for the telcos program of ever-more labyrinthine and manipulable regulation. If I were a telco executive, Id be on my knees every night thanking my god(s) for this opposition. Mistake #2 for any libertarian to avoid is backing these clowns.
....
Quote
Why I wont be signing the Declaration of Internet Freedom as it is
Posted on 2012-07-03 by Eric Raymond
...
because libertarians who understand why asymmetries of power and information are in general bad things have very particular reasons to know better than this.
In the long run, open systems and networks are always better for consumers. Because, whatever other flaws they may have, they have one overriding virtue they dont create an asymmetrical power relationship in which the consumer is ever more controlled by the network provider. Statists, who accept and even love asymmetrical power relationships as long as the right sort of people are doing the oppressing, have some excuse within their terms of reference for failing to grasp the nasty second, third, and nth-order consequences of closed-system lock-in. Libertarians have no such excuse.
...
Posted on 2012-07-03 by Eric Raymond
...
because libertarians who understand why asymmetries of power and information are in general bad things have very particular reasons to know better than this.
In the long run, open systems and networks are always better for consumers. Because, whatever other flaws they may have, they have one overriding virtue they dont create an asymmetrical power relationship in which the consumer is ever more controlled by the network provider. Statists, who accept and even love asymmetrical power relationships as long as the right sort of people are doing the oppressing, have some excuse within their terms of reference for failing to grasp the nasty second, third, and nth-order consequences of closed-system lock-in. Libertarians have no such excuse.
...