You've seen the image where a non-neutral internet service is selling cable-like tiers, as if the costs of uploading content to cable TV were in any way comparable to the costs of uploading content to other PCs. Even the busiest web sites operate on hardware budgets of four or five figures, while a TV studio will end up with five or six figures of equipment.

This means that internet content will be inherently more diverse than TV content. If the concern raised by a non-neutral internet was one of centralized content providers, then I would say that net neutrality has done more harm than good.

Where do we see the most monopolies? The internet. Why should this be?

I think it is because half of Google's bandwidth costs are paid for by internet service customers - all of them, all of us. Since every bit has to be priced roughly the same, with only monthly volume taken into account, business models that depend on high bandwidth tend to flourish.

In a way this is good, since popular opinion tends to win out. But in a way this is bad, since that opinion is not allowed to change very fluidly. Amazon's and Ebay's costs are scaled such that theirs are very low compared to those entering the market. Therefore they can charge much lower royalties on items advertised on their pages.

The reason that internet monopolies are particularly bad is because of privacy concerns, and the unilateral data collected from people. When one company is providing a given service, it's not just creepy, it's a system that tracks current preferences and depends on them. New services will be very slow to emerge when all of the data suggest that people like old services.

I think if you want a more dynamic internet with more options, vote against net neutrality.

Why do people always have names that predict their behavior. -?

This guy is named Curt Schilling and he is shilling his game in a very curt way.

Alan Greenspan controls a large span of green money.

Joe Paterno is a paternal figure, or was.

Are parents really that good at vocational guidance? I'm trying to think of others.

Fascinating.

Although the source there puts the odds at "Likely," without quantification. It's also the lowest category of confidence they have. The consensus appears to say that's it's more likely than not, but not as certain as the mere fact that it's getting hotter.

One Anti-ACC point I've seen lately is that of cities being hotter because they're bigger: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island
This supposedly skews the results to 'prove' ACC, although this is apparently overrated.

I've only been reading wiki today, and your source.

I wish people would get this right. The consensus is about the earth getting hotter, which would make sense since we're going away from an ice age, not toward one. There is no consensus about man's impact on the earth. From the article, it would appear that mankind is curbing our inevitable heat wave.

As long as the buzzword is so ingrained in grant-writing culture, the conversation about climate change cannot progress.

Calling someone a troll isn't a refutation.

OH, wait, this is slashdot, so you probably think it is.

I'm watching your Fix the World movie, and it's hilarious. But, I disagree. You make the point that industry is at fault for the suffering of Bhopal. That's not the whole truth, though. Aren't the people of India responsible for suing Dow in order to get the justice they want? The biggest failure as I see it is from the government of India, and the lack of unrest. Luckily for them, two members of the Free Market saw an opportunity in calling for more damages from Dow.

So, to summarize in a question, who's more responsible for action against injustice, the corporation of stockholders, or the population that's affected?

The last word of this story title could have been much worse.

Let's examine the spectrum from:

Cold-War Missile Launches Military Assault
to
Cold-War Missile Launches Military Baby Shower

Comments that say the movie sucks will get modded up.

Comments that defend the movie will stay below sea level moderation.

This is because some people associated with the movie decided to pursue a civil copyright lawsuit.

The summary will say the MPAA is involved. This will be false.

No analysis of the movie, or any new analysis of copyright law will occur.

Or you could say it sold like anything that staves off death from famine.