Sunday, March 01, 2015
Piranha V (Desert).
Note: Just a few more pics of the Desert Piranha. I can't find what makes this different from the "standard" Piranha V but I imagine it has to do with "environmental" equipment to make it more effective. I got to give General Dynamics credit on this one. Its a sexy beast. Notice the last pic? I wonder why they just don't give these vehicles skid steering instead of making them more complex by making the rear wheels turnable (yeah I know it decreases turn radius but you can't beat zero...if anyone has the answer hit me up in the comments).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(
Atom
)
Skid steering is adding a lot of wear and tear compared to steering the wheels and only time skid steering comes in to play is at turning on the spot ,but other 95% of the time its just inducing extra. wear and tear. French have some skid steering AFVs but that probably has most to do with the fact that they share some components with a tracked vehicle.
ReplyDeleteBOOM it becomes you did this vs we did that..
ReplyDeleteAnd the ISP's look on smiling...
Stop politicizing this .. it is not!
Stop bullshitting everyone instead of talking about the real issue.
If net neutrality is so dangerous for the internet.. how did the internet grow so much WILE WE HAD IT?
If net neutrality is such a bad thing, why did Bush sr, Clinton or Bush jr not get rid of it when they were in power?
You equate enforcing net neutrality with the government getting their hands on the internet .. well if you are right then they had their hands on it the whole time .. and nothing happened.
Explain that to me..
Stop pretending net neutrality is a new thing!
In all these posts you have not once talked about why net neutrality is bad. Net neutrality ITSELF! Not some law, an imaginary tax or regulations in general..
Again: Net neutrality is the principle that ISP's and governments have to treat every bit of data equal as it existed from the start of the net till june/july last year.
What is wrong with that principle?
Yes I am basically repeating myself, because I want to make sure you understand perfectly what I am asking. Your two pieces claim to be about net neutrality and as such you should at least have a position on THAT SUBJECT!
Well that and the republican bill that was proposed was basically a telecom's wet dream! It was quite literally a check list of everything that Verizon, Comcast, et al want.
ReplyDeleteThe sheer arrogance of your statement they you know more than the "tech geeks" is shocking.
ReplyDeletePs. who is the 'you' you are talking about? Democrats? proponents of net neutrality?
ReplyDeleteIf its the latter then the case has been taken to the public big time,. It was everywhere. Firefox had popups warning us about what was happening. If you used Wikipedia they redirected you to a page about net neutrality. Google did the same. CNN, the mayor newspapers all did pieces on it. The specialized sites about computers and internet like Tom's Hardware have their articles.
If you want I can get you links to tons of articles , warnings and appeals.
For once the government actually listened to a widely supported grassroots appeal.
The only reason there even is an opposition is money invested by ISP's because they are THE ONLY ONES that have somethign to gain from breaking net neutrality.
If you do not understand how important this principle is by now there is something wrong.. either you are paid by ISP's, to blinded by hate for all things government or to proud to give in..
It is simply impossible for someone without a financial interest in ISP's to understand the issue and be against net neutrality as a principle.
Yes you can be against regulations, yu can be against government interference, but you can not be against the principle!
Solomon, the camel's nose was already under the tent and has been for the better part of a decade.
ReplyDeleteAnd when they propose taxes and fees, the masses will rise up just as they did when the FCC was considering a proposal basically written by the monopoly ISPs (so much so that the FCC network was shut down by the volume of response!).
Basically we have two bulls we can ride. One is immune to pain and wants to make us suffer, the other responds to pain and can be taimed. We can make the government response, the monopoly ISPs can basically ignore anything.
And just FYI, there have been several NN bills brought to congress, none made it out of committee. All were killed by committee members flush with monopoly ISP cash. And it been brought to the people many times. Its a rather boring subject for most people.
It should probably be pointed out that the very same provider of this blogger is one of the major supporters of Net Neutrality. That provider as I'm sure everyone knows is google.
ReplyDeleteThe only reason any politician can have to propose bills like that ( and they all do it, both sides) is a nice contribution to their campaign fund by these ISP's
ReplyDeleteI have read interviews with Republican lawmakers who explain the need for net neutrality, they aren't stupid, they get it. Sadly though some Republicans and Democrats are firmly in the pockets of big business instead of looking out for the best interests of their constituents.
you just made my point son. the issue is the govt. you can have a pie in the sky view of things but if you want to play that game then free healthcare for all with extremely high standards of care is possible, crime will not happen, people will not go hungry, drug addiction will not happen....and the govt will be able to make all this happen because they have good intentions.
ReplyDeletebut we both know that's not how the govt works. every law, regulation etc can be gamed. and people will game it. which means more and more laws and regulations in an attempt to reach utopia.
all you bastards talking about how great the govt is for stepping in and solving this problem are overlooking the track record of the govt in solving problems.
IT NEVER FUCKING WORKS!
its a foregone conclusion though.
1. I WILL NEVER AGREE WITH YOU ON THIS.
2. The Republicans rolled over like good little dogs like they always do.
3. Over three fourths of the public is sold on govt intervention to solve problems instead of using the power that they have to walk away, close their wallets and make big corporations behave.
quite honestly all this fairy tale thinking disgusts me.
NN is widely bi-partisan on both sides of the issue. There are opponents and supports of it in both the democratic and republican parties.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, I would of been happier if it could of been done without Title II reclassification but all other options were exhausted. If nothing else, maybe it will actually compel congress to take the issue seriously and create another category of FCC regulation with the required power but without any of the non-required parts of Title II (which are being for the time being not being enforced under Forbearance).
who gives a rats ass what google supports? they're just another corporation that's trying to maximize profits. i probably wouldn't support the candidates they like so why should i listen to them when it comes to a regulatory issue?
ReplyDeletebut the White House didn't do that. they didn't put forward legislation to congress to try and get this done...they wanted regulation. and you fucks are swallowing it hook line and sinker without considering the ramifications of govt regulation IN THE FUCKING INTERNET!!!! why can't you guys see the slippery slope in this!!!
ReplyDeleteall you see is sunshine and happy days. YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT THIS ISN"T ANYTHING BUT A POWER PLAY TO GAIN CONTROL OVER A PART OF YOUR LIFE, ENTERTAINMENT, RESEARCH, INFORMATION GATHERING ETC??????
this is the final piece in the puzzle. the president (future presidents) are getting all the pieces in place to...
1. FORCE ISPs TO PROVIDE INFORMATION WITHOUT A COURT ORDER.
2. RAISE TAXES>>>IT MIGHT BE SMALL NOW BUT YOU CAN BET IT'LL GO UP!
3, CENSOR INFORMATION
4. KILL ANONYMITY ON THE NET
the list goes on. but you guys SIMPLY REFUSE TO THINK PAST YOUR FUCKING NOSES.
1) fine then don't agree, but if you repeat incorrect information, you should expect people to correct you.
ReplyDelete2) Many many republicans are in support of net neutrality. And if the bills proposed in congress actually made it out of committee it would of never of come to this.
3) there is really no ability to walk away on this Solomon. Walking away basically equates to canceling all digital services. No phones, no internet, no cable. For many working Americans that is simply not viable. That's not a viable solution, and even people opposed to Title II agree on that.
And the FCC is also working on solving the root of this problem which is lack of competition. Primarily by nullifying state laws that were bought and paid for by the monopoly ISPs.
And I would be perfectly happy if congress actually passed a bill that enabled NN without requiring Title II. I don't see it happening but I would welcome it.
Actually Solomon, Google is acting very much against their own self interest on this issue. A lack of net neutrality and metered content would actually be very much in Google's self interest as it would basically permanently lock out any potential competitors.
ReplyDeleteThe Patriot Act already gave government huge powers, Bush made it, Obama kept it. The NSA already is capable of intercepting all we write and do.. that's not a partisan issue either, Bush and Obama both let it happen.
ReplyDeleteYou keep somehow refusing to see one thing : we had Net Neutrality since forever until some ISPs managed to get a judge to break it.
Net neutrality is not the issue you argue against.. you argue against the way it is being enforced. Well, that was brought upon us by ISPs who broke the old way and by the legislator, BOTH SIDES not fixing it in some decent way.. because they can not do much else then argue.
This issue is so big, so instrumental to the survival of the internet as we know it that I frankly don't give a darn about the risks involved. The risk of NOT doing it are wy bigger.
You can use distractions and talk about our fucking noses all you want, but it does not make you right.. In fact, your refusal orm inability to talk about net neutrality itself sends a very clear message itself. It tells us all your WRONG!
If you had anything at all to attack net neutrality itself you would use it instead of talking about everything but net neutrality. The only conclusion can be : you have nothing!
you're avoiding my main point like the plague. i don't give a flying fuck about 99 percent of this. i'll pay until i don't feel like i'm getting value and then i'll start cutting back. the must have part of the internet, phones etc is only about 10 percent of their actual use. the rest is entertainment. but i digress. you refuse to talk about the dangers of govt regulation....all you're doing is expressing joy.
ReplyDeleteGovernment regulation was ALREADY in the fucking internet. It has always been in the fucking internet.
ReplyDeleteTitle II does really jack all to give the goverment any more control than they already had over my life, entertainment, research, or information gathering. And so far any actual attempt to gain MORE control has been destroyed. EX. SOPA.
1) ISPs already provide information without a court order. ALL MAJOR ISPs HAVE BEEN PROVIDING INFORMATION WITHOUT A COURT ORDER FOR OVER A DECADE TO THE USG! And they don't just provide information, they provide full raw streams of ALL traffic to the USG! The ISPs are actually the worst when it comes to handing over your information, and they do nothing to safeguard it.
2) If they are going to raise taxes, they already has numerous ways to do that! Any attempt to raise taxes using Title II would require another FCC ruling as the current ruling already applies forbearance wrt to any taffics or taxes not already part of Title I regulation. That second ruling would be the appropriate point to go nuclear.
3) Nothing in Title II allows them to sensor information! Title I and Title II are exactly the same in this regard. Any ability to censor beyond what they already have would require a congressional bill, an executive order, or black cyber ops.
4) Nothing in Title II is needed to kill anonymity on the net. Nothing in Title II increases the governments ability to kill anonymity on the net. And the reality is that for the USG, there basically already isn't anonymity on the net. Even using something like TAILS and TOR and OTR, you are not anonymous on the net. And TAILS+TOR+OTR are basically the BEST OUT THERE to get any level of anonymity on the net. And yet it still fails to provide it vs FIVE EYES (AKA NSA+friends). If you think that the internet was or is anonymous vs the USG then you were/are only fooling yourself.
"Taxes on the internet , internet for everyone, wanting to make Tellytubbies a national treasure or whatever else Obama or any lawmaker might do has NOTHING TO DO WITH NET NEUTRALITY!!!!"
ReplyDeleteThat is the whole point you are not getting. You assume the gov is some benign magical thing that will represent your best interest. I hate to inform you but just like companies the gov is run by HUMANS and politicks goal is power, money, and gaining control over your life so they are more important hence powerful.
The fuzzy name of this reg is "net neutrality" yes but it will have taxes it will have regulations it will have government intervention and restriction. It will not be a songs and flowers.
Go look at your cell phone bill variable but nearly a third of it is government taxes, soon you will have that pleasure on your internet bill aswell. Title 2 love baby.
By the way do you have a link I can read the full regs of this benign great think they just approved?
No, I did not make your point because I realize governments and politicians mess up all the time.. you could almost think they are humans ..
ReplyDeleteMy point is very simple and you have not argued against it for some reason.. we could almost think you have nothing.. the point is: Data on the internet should be treated equally LIKE IT ALWAYS HAS BEEN until June/July.
Everything beyond that is not about net neutrality anymore.
Since your 2 posts were clearly titled to be about net neutrality there is a huge disconnect here. You claim to have a problem with net neutrality, but fail to tell us what that problem is.
If you were to tell us: yes I actually agree that net neutrality, treating all data equal is one of the cornerstones of the internet as we know it, but I don't like the way it is enforced, fine.. but that is a different debate, with a different title.
Ill try one more time: Solomon, please, tell me what was wrong with the internet, in lets say 2003, because of the net neutrality we had then?
What problem was solved by getting rid of net neutrality last year?
Interesting, so you actually don't care if there is a free and open internet?
ReplyDeleteIf it disappears, or gets to expensive you simply pick yourself up and move on?
To what? The Solomon SNAFU radioshow ?
because the government already largely regulated or has full access to everything to do with the internet.
ReplyDeleteVery little of Title II is applied by the ruling, the rest has been removed by forbearance and would require another ruling to re-enable.
And no, I don't trust the government. But the list of things you have express that you are afraid about don't exist in this ruling.
Taxes/tarrifs? given blanket forbearance in the ruling. Would require a separate ruling to add. No net change. Without this ruling, it would require a ruling to add it. With this ruling, it would require a ruling to add it.
All the other shit, is shit that is already broken, shit that the government already does. This FCC ruling doesn't change it. CAUSE IT ALREADY EXISTS!
I know full well what the government is capable off. I know that the NSA basically has a fully copy of everything going over basically any digital medium. So regardless even if there was something in Title II that would make it possible, it is already happening without Title II.
If you want to be pissed, I suggest you start reading up on Equation Group, Five Eyes, et al. That shit will get you pissed. And make you realize that all your worst fears about reclassification to Title II don't really matter because everything you fear about Title II already exists without Title II!
Can't do radio, that has more regulations that the internet. Ditto TV.
ReplyDeleteIt was pretty quiet until John Oliver did a show on it
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpbOEoRrHyU
It took off after that.
Who are you aiming that comment at?
ReplyDeleteOh, I know it won't be all songs and flowers. But you should educate yourself on what the ruling allows and what it doesn't. Forbearance will be applied in a blanket fashion to much of the Title II ruleset. It would require another FCC ruling to end that forbearance. So anything under forbearance will be a non-change from the status quo.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes it will have regulations and government interventions and restrictions, and there will be a LOT of people looking at how things are applied. And when they invariably step out of sync, there will be massive pushback. The same amount of pushback that forced them to shelve the intermediate proposal last year which basically gave the ISPs everything they wanted. Or at least I hope so.
And the full text of the ruling should be out shortly.
Yes, John Oliver gets a lot of credit for taking a rather boring subject and making it both entertaining and interesting to a lot of people. The dingo comment alone was brilliant and applies to so much more than the FCC.
ReplyDeleteThe guy who wrote this article.
ReplyDeleteSol,
ReplyDeleteI'm going to take this personally because I am one of the tech geeks who has been paying attention and has seen the various court battles between Verizon and the FCC play out. Just because it wasn't on your radar doesn't mean it wasn't on the "tech geek" radar. Much like most of America didn't even bother looking at Operation Atlantic Resolve until the headline "US Armor Paraded 300 Yards from Russia" came up and all of a sudden people started noticing.
When you write, "spare me your so called facts" you really need take a look at what you just wrote. You are entitled to your own opinion, but when you say "I know reality better because I just know" than the people paying attention to the issue...well lets just say I can't really help you at that point.
I know going through slashdot and arstechnica is some dry reading if you aren't a tech geek, and sometimes even if you ARE a tech geek. Worse is still reading the RFCs and white papers the IETF publishes.
Now, none of that says you are wrong. The FCC may in fact utterly screw up the internet, but it is not a foregone conclusion any more than the people who were freaking out about Ebola last summer.
"That is the whole point you are not getting. You assume the gov is some
ReplyDeletebenign magical thing that will represent your best interest."
BS. The government is as flawed as we all are and I know it, but that does not mean we can do without it. Some how some entity has to set the rules we all play by. That could also be corporations.. but frankly I prefer democracy over that route.
You might want to do away with all rules and go for anarchy, but realize we will not have a society without it.
Your Ip address is a rule, you driving on the right side of the road is one, you getting 100 cents for your dollar, your employer paying you.
Hafting sozet golmanev. Didn't understand what I wrote there? That is because I stopped using the rules that govern English.
You might not like it, but reality is full of rules.
Net neutrality is one such rule and unlike many others it worked , it worked in 2001, it worked in 2007 , it worked in 2014 .. until some judge broke it.
And no, I do not have a link to the full set of rules and regs the FCC now uses , I can imagine them being a step down from the rule we had before.. but who is to blame for that? Who broke the old working rule?
regardless, net neutrality is not some regulation by the FCC, it is a principle. Sadly the FCC had to do something to enforce it after some greedy bastards chose to not adhere to it anymore.
But then I do not care if the FCC enforces it, or Santa Claus, as long as the principle is enforced and the internet remains the open, fair tool it always has been where it counts if you have something interesting to say.
The next shoe is already starting to show a little track anyway.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22530102.600-google-wants-to-rank-websites-based-on-facts-not-links.html#.VPNGU_nF-H4
Sounds great right "facts" ahhh yes facts. Facts are funny things more often than not confused with Theory and that is the problem. At one time it was a considered fact the earth was flat, at one time it was a considered fact that the earth revolved around the sun. It goes on when I was in elementary school it was a fact that dinosaurs were cold blooded like our modern lizards/snakes, then by highschool it was fact that they were warm blooded fast turned into birds not modern lizards/snakes, now I look at my sons science book and they I guess compromised at all the above. The point is facts change as more information is "freely" circulated, and allowing that free circulation is what washes away the ole failed theories and brings in the new facts/theories, demonizing apposing views especially restriction of free flow of opposing views is what stagnates progress hence a generation of flat earth vs heretics.
Limiting of opposing views in any form will always end badly because very simply human nature will always result in corruption/abuse of that power.
Ole german guy once told me something. "Americans are great strong people you grab a wad of their hair and yank it they will turn and beat you half to death, but they are also short sighted with little memory so if you just sit behind them pulling one hair at a time over years they will sit their smiling going about their daily business smiling wondering how they became bald."
Also when not stopped, skid stearing can result in lack of traction. As well, if the vehicle has any form of ASR, skid steering can make it much more complex.
ReplyDeleteAnd I'm not sure the rear wheel steering really makes it all that complex. They likely use the exact same mechanism as the front wheels. Skid steering would likely require another set of gear boxes on at least 4 wheels which seems much more complex and prone to issues.
There is something that does say : Solomon you are wrong!
ReplyDeleteMaybe not about the FCC mucking it up, that certainly is possible.
Where Solomon is dead wrong is in his suggestion that net neutrality itself , the principle, not the rule enforcing it, is a bad thing. The titles of the two rants alone suggests that and they should not!
you're another one of those pathetic humans that attempts to dissect and parse statements to death. i have stated why i think this is a bad idea. eat shit and die. Dracae. you don't like it then guess what! i don't give a fuck. eat shit and die. i marvel at people like you though. you're so beholden to govt control that you're a slave and don't even realize it. you believe that the rules will protect? bullshit. the world is wild and wooly and predators will eat you up. even on the internet.
ReplyDeleteso let me restate (cause you motherfuckers are boring me now)....i don't care if every person on here disagrees with me. i'll steer my own course and everyone of you will soon regret the day that you gave the internet over to the govt with not a fight but with a cheer and a big "save me daddy".
And NOTHING what you just said has anything to do with Net Neutrality, except for one thing: Net neutrality actually limits Google in what it can and can not do.
ReplyDeleteSomehow your pieces come down to that gut feeling you seemingly have that makes you mistrust everything the government does without actually judging things on their merits.
Maybe because you can only look at things black and white, right or wrong , without allowing for shades of grey you and Sol seem to think I can only see the good in governments.
Well, I don't! I do try my best to judge everything on its own merits.
Some things governments do are good for us, some are not, same goes for corporations, individual people even for democracy and capitalism. There is no perfect. No perfect government, no perfect business, o perfect nation, no perfect system. We will have to deal with this imperfect system and try to get the best out of it. THAT IS REALITY , if we like it or not.
gut feelings will keep you alive. your reality is someplace i've never seen. i don't live in the land of unicorns and rainbows.
ReplyDeleteSol, I remember when you were the F35's biggest proponent. You never know how you may feel after some time.
ReplyDeleteyeah and if i had said that the US military would fuck up its number one priority like i believe the US govt will fuck up the internet i would be right on both counts.
ReplyDeleteyou're saying i might feel differently? not bloody likely. what is entirely probable is that all these fans of govt intervention will be crying like school girls in a couple of years.
hope.
ReplyDeleteyou're depending on hope to get the govt to behave?
ok. i hope you're right....even though i know you're wrong.
So having read the paper, it actually fairly interesting. Basically they are attempting to exact both true facts and accuracy of source without a priori knowledge of what facts are accurate or what sources are accurate.
ReplyDeleteThey feed in sets of source pages(the web) then exact unverified fact "triples"(object, reference, assertion) from those pages using multiple different extractors. One of the issues they've found is that the extractors have flaws in how they extract unverified fact triples. Therefore for a given extractor they don't know if what was extracted was an accurate representation of the facts given. So instead of using a single extraction method, they use a multitude of extraction methods. They then iterate over a two stage method to refine which extractors are giving correct results for a given fact on a given page, which facts that are extracted are true, and which pages are accurate.
All of this is done without using any base facts as reference. So the results are biased by a priori known facts in any way.
It a pretty interesting system. I think your fears are somewhat unfounded. Its not really limiting opposing views cause the system doesn't have a view. What its doing is extracting facts from a pile of unverified information. Nor does it appear that they want to replace page rank but use it in addition to page range when answering questions. So when you submit a question to google, it would use a combination of the factual accuracy method and the page rank algorithm to try to provide you with the most correct result.
Obvious it still needs a lot more testing but it could certainly result in much more accurate search results.
Solomon, you are assuming we weren't already crying ;)
ReplyDeleteSometimes the option sucks but you have to take it and pray it doesn't suck too badly.
ReplyDeleteYeh yeh... nice attempt to paint me in a corner...good luck with that.
ReplyDeleteYou do know hat happened here, don't you?
Why this subject is different then your usual military ones, where people tend to agree with you?
Everyone has subjects they know more and less about, some even are experts. You clearly have your strengths, so when you see a new item about some IFV you can judge its validity in your sleep.
Net neutrality clearly is not one of those subjects, by assuming it became big 'out of the blue'( quote) you showed you have not been interested in the subject. If you had been you would have seen a huge uproar about it all over the net.
I don't now where your sudden interest comes from, maybe you read some ISP sponsored piece trying to politicize this and got hooked. Some spin doctors are rather clever...
I'm also one of the tech geeks and have been following the issues of net neutrality for nearly 5 years. For tech geeks I think the issue is as important as some of the most pressing 2nd amendment issues in recent years for gun supporters. Most folks don't have a clue about the M855 ammo ban controversy, the New York mental health laws, the sig "pistol brace" or a slew of other gun legal issues that most 2A supporters know intimately. Savvy 2A advocates don't draw the line in using "government involvement" to advocate the cause. Chicago vs Miller was instrumental in dismantling unconstitutional federal law. Likewise the recent state laws in Missouri and Montana use the opposite of tactic of asserting state rights to dismantle unconstitutional federal law. I for one wouldn't be surprised when the republicans push for net neutrality legislation that may alleviate many of your concerns regarding tax, legislation that will likely get the support of many of the pro-net neutrality advocates because in the end this for these advocates its not about big vs small government but instead using whatever mechanism available to ensure common carrier transit continues as it has for the last 20 years.
ReplyDeleteBetter steering after it has driven into a mine?
ReplyDeleteOops?
ReplyDeleteVery good. Thanks for posting this.
ReplyDeleteyeah but you're an Army geek. oh and a quick sidenote. i paid attention to those Strykers long before the rest of the internet caught up. but back to the issue at hand. answer me this. do you trust the FCC to simply stop or do you foresee further govt meddling with the internet? if your answer is that you see further meddling then you're against this action and should want an alternative to this action by the FCC.
ReplyDeleteDracae you need to quit foaming and realize everyone agrees with the idea of "net neutrality" just like everyone agrees with the ideas of "ending war" or "ending poverty" or hell "ending drug use". Unfortunately those are ideas and principles and my ideas of how to regulate such ideas intentions is not what you would accept or want and vise versa, that is considering the writers even have real intent and didn't just get the name out of a poll tested system. We are debating laws regulation which are what we must live by AGAIN NOBODY KNOWS THE REGS THEY ARE KEEPING THEM HIDDEN WHY?
ReplyDeleteYou have NO IDEA what the actual laws rules regs are because they have not released them to the public. Why is that? I do not have blind faith in the gov or my elected "betters" I have seen them take ideals, intentions, intent and twist that in to ridiculous laws regs rules. More often than not they end up exacerbating the problem there intended to fix, while screwing everyone along the way. Until we see how this "net neutrality" is written we have no idea what it will do or if it even has anything to do with net neutrality at all.
You keep saying "net neutrality" has nothing to do with taxes speech etc... but YOU HAVE NO IDEA what is in the regs. Maybe the regs are written in a bad way with good intent, maybe they are written in a evil way with evil intent hiding behind the warm fuzzy poll tested verbiage of "net neutrality".
What bothers me more than anything else about the whole situation is the fact these new regs have been approved and we the gen pop have still not been allowed to see what these regs actually say. That is ripe for abuse and some ole school stuff we have not seen here on our side of the pond since Washington. We have WRITTEN RULES its a foundation gripe the colonist had, when rules are not written they can be whatever the power be, at that moment and time wish them to be, that is the kind of power we are not supposed to allow here.
Even if these regs are benign and no big deal the legal president has been set for the future were bad regs could be just approved at a whim by our self believed betters. That is dangerous power that belongs in tin horn dictatorships not in a nation of the people by the people.
NO ONE KNOWS what those regs are now, or what this new legal president is going to bring US in the future.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
I certainly see your point. Sdly it seems not everyone likes the idea or principle of Net Neutrality. I have certainly asked Sol and others to at least agree on that.. and got no response beyond a whole lot of what most would call 'foaming' ( at the mouth).
ReplyDeleteI have fully admitted I do not know the technicalities of the rules, but also pointed out we HAD such rules since for ever without them being abused until some irresponsible ISP sued and after several attempts won.
I will leave talking about the actual rules in detail to people who actually live in the USA like CharleyA and Aaron Spink, who seem to be much better at it..
I did study economy in university, but that is half a lifetime and an ocean away from this. It did teach me a few fundamental truths though: Monopolies are bad and rules are unavoidable.
SNot because I believe in Obama, but because I believe in this subject I have told Soloon and I will tell you: why not agree to let history judge this one and see if Obama does what several people seem to fear here and taxes the internet based on these FCC rulings.
If he does.. I will be right there with you all protesting that!
In the end it comes down to this: there (sadly) is NO OTHER WAY to guarantee Net Neutrality then trough government rules!!!
There could be.. sometimes industries do make binding agreements, but clearly some players, a minority, but a powerful one, does not want to do this here.
negative. there was another option and that was to make your case to the public. but you didn't do that. instead you've fucked us all by getting the camels nose under the tent. shit is gonna fly, get into your sleeping bag and you're gonna wonder how things got this fucked up. i'll point to this day and remind you of how wonderful you said everything was gonna be. how you said that it would spurn innovation and how it wouldn't lead to over regulation, taxes and govt assholes doing what govt assholes do.
ReplyDeletebut you'll ignore all that and insist that another law be passed instead of simply saying you were wrong, the govt fucked the internet and a tool for the masses to FINALLY get information is being strangled because govt got it nasty paws on it.
But that isn't what is happening...
ReplyDeleteCongress could pass the shortest law ever, 'isp's must treat all data equally'
They have not
If that works, fine with me...
ReplyDeleteI don't give a damn how they guarantee net neutrality, just that they do it.
The likely reason for doing it this way though, is that it bypasses the totally gridlocked legislature to busy with partisan arguing to do anything right.
It would take years to get anything down that way...
My internet service is already taxed at the local level. A federal tax is likely, but will be small mainly to cover the cost of administration and possibly to subsidize quality internet service to rural areas.
ReplyDeleteComcast, Verizon and other hybrid television / internet "last mile" providers who also own long distance signal transmission / switching infrastructure create a conflict of interest in the market. One prime example is charging Netflix and other streaming services a premium for unfettered / quality access. The justification is that those services consume huge chunks of bandwidth - which is true. But bandwidth is cheap once built out, and the streaming companies already pay enormous amounts of money to access networks. The cable television companies are trying to get a "cut" of streaming subscription money - on top of premium charges for internet service for end consumers - because their traditional television service market is dying a slow death. Google OTOH, is building its own networks in lucky communities across the US that will be out of reach to the legacy telecom / cable television companies - and so far are friendlier to consumers. So who do you trust as a consumer - Google, et al, or legacy telecom/cable companies like Verizon, Comcast, and ATT?
Very eloquent , Sol....
ReplyDeleteCan we make a deal?
If the Obama government abuses this FCC rule to ad an internet tax I will admit I was wrong. If this administration does not... you will.
How about that, we will let reality decide on at least that point.
Since I am hungry now I am going to eat, but not the dish you suggest, if you don't mind...