I can't help but point out two observations I've made reading today's Slashdot headlines: (1) There is a post accusing the Kochs of being astroturf for spending money to oppose Net Neutrality (2) This map shows the US as one of the few "free" uses of Internet around the world. Maybe giving due attention to those who express reservations about heavier regulation on the Net is better than slandering them. That's just a thought I'd like to post here on the free and open Internet.

Nobody is going to challenge the premise that special interests influence how things work in Washington, and of course the rest of the nation down stream of that, typically with a yellow tint for the rest of us if you catch my drift. So called Net Neutrality will be up for grabs to the special interest because it is quite subjective what, "neutral," means when left to a lawyer or regulator, and they can bend that term to fit any agenda Our government has been caught in one of the worst lies to its citizens in history with, "If you like you health plan, you can keep you health plan. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor," and, "The VA is an outstanding model for health insurance." There is no reason to have faith that if you like your Internet, you can keep your Internet with Net Neutrality. In the current state of affairs, most consumers have multiple options: cable companies, FIOS, DSL. And they all have to compete for business. However dissatisfied you are with your current options, you as a consumer will have less power of what Internet delivers to you when politicians begin appointing those who shall mandate what's best for the rest of us. Your pick for who should occupy the White House and make such appointments will not always be whom you want.

Slandering the Kochs as astroturf has no real merit. Grass roots of any form has money behind it, whether it is they, Michael Bloomberg, George Soros, Hollywood, or Tom Steyer.

Reason calls for opposing Net Neutrality.

I'm going to qualify what I'm saying by stating that this is a guess. Without further interviewing or reviewing the profiles of the population of the study, I don't think anyone could seriously speak more strongly. Capitalism is founded on the rules applying equally to all. If Alice creates a widget that outperform's Bob's, she's going to earn more money. Both were free to produce whatever they wanted according to the same rule of law, but one performed better than the other. It's natural that willing participants in such a system observe that for the system to work, law must be followed to create the closest state reasonably possible to an operational environment equal to all who participate. The mentality of socialism places an emphasis in closing the gab between the inequalities of outcome. Here, Alice may produce a widget that outperforms Bob's, but others will frown upon a wide income gap between the two, regardless of how much better Alice's widget is. There are negative impacts perceived in such a wide income gap. In these circumstances, one who subscribes to the ideas that underpin socialism would tolerate working outside the protocol of the rules of producing widgets for the sake of preventing Alice from outperforming Bob to some extent. And if one happens to be Bob, breaking the rules of the game of economics is actually contributing to the greater rule of keeping the income gap from becoming what such a person considers too wide. It may strike Bob in his view of what's fair to break the rules. As for some final thoughts, I don't think anyone can reasonably conclude that people who advocate capitalism are people who respect rules and those who advocate socialist ideas are not. Rather I think that the operational environment entices people to behave in certain ways. Put a raving capitalist in a socialist system, and he may not behave according to the rules. Additionally, in a system, such as socialism where execution of the rules and control of resources resided more so in a centralized authority, the most pertinent rule is learning to gain favorability with that centralized authority. All other rules are subordinate to that. Just for the sake of full disclosure in case you've read this far and are still wondering, I mostly prefer a capitalist economic model over a socialist one. Cheers, and happy Slashdotting.

Samantha, I'm a supporter of legalizing same-sex marriage, and I agree with your statement 100%. As an additional side note, he invented JavaScript. I wonder if OKCupid will banish all use of JavaScript from their site. If they don't, they are raging hypocrites.

When will investigations into Soros, Buffet, or Bloomberg happen? Should they every, I wonder if all the Conservatives will applaud while the Liberals moan. Could we have a consistent standard?

It astounds me that people who call themselves, "green," because they have a car that runs on a battery. I'm not talking about hybrid cars, but rather the ones that plug into a charging station, a majority of which have a power plant powered by coal supplying it energy.

This whole episode is clearly a misunderstanding. They were just thinking about the wrong missiles!

Dear Slashdot, please score this as a 5!

'09-'10 Winter drops 2+ feet of snow in the mid-Atlantic Alarmists: "Don't you people know the difference between climate and weather?"

'12 Summer brings 2 stretches of 100+ degree temperatures Alarmists: "See! CO2 emissions cause global warming!"

Absolutely.

To counter (2), we could consider price capping taxpayer funded scholarship aid per scholarship awarded. Plenty of high caliber institutions exist as alternatives to the exceedingly high priced schools. GWU, for example, actually prides themselves as the most expensive school in the nation. If such a cap exists, schools may refocussing their funds on affordable, quality education rather than giant rock-climbing walls. (I have nothing against rock-climbing walls. It's just an example of something that higher education doesn't need to fund.)

U.N. Me is an eye-openning movie. It brings many of the UN related headlines of the past decades to a personal level that a two-minute news segment cannot. Everyone should see it.

I can see from where you are coming on this, but I have some thoughts to add. I have faith in the meaning of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, but I have zero faith in our elected leaders to abide by it. Much of the US code that exists now violates the principals of our founding documents, but that hasn't stopped them from coming into existence. I, like you, don't like labeling this as an Internet Bill of Rights, but I agree with the precedent Issa aims set in terms of making digital legislation individual-centric as opposed to collective-centric. I do fear a potential pitfall in the use of the word, "right," because so many in this day and age consider a right as something somebody else must provide for them as opposed to the simply freedom to pursue it for oneself. "I have a right to use the internet, so somebody should give me a computer and an internet connection for free. After all, it is my right; isn't it? Just tax the rich!" Believe me, that lies just around the corner, most sadly.

No kidding. I don't know what Gnome was thinking. The new interface is horrible. I've found KDE to be a nice Gome 2 surrogate.

To the original poster...

I would never suggest or try to talk somebody into doing something that violates his or her ethics. If you aim to live as a 100% pacifist, that's your own choice and your own beliefs. If I may offer a point that I think is worth considering, I image that in your extended network of friends and family, you probably have some loved one serving in our armed forces. Having the best technology at their disposal only betters the chance that conflict ends expediently and our military personnel come come safe.

On the medical side, the only way you can truly avoid making any contribution to animal testing is not participate the health care industry at all (which the new health care law will not permit you to do unless SCOTUS strikes down the individual mandate) and consume no product that requires FDA approval. Unless you're minimally abstaining from those things, you're not contributing to animal testing any less by not writing source code for a biotech company.