Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
And I would further emphasize that my argument is actually the solid libertarian one: What does the contract say? A real libertarian would go straight to that point. But this author is not a libertarian -- he is a ridiculous shill for rapine corporations.
Mind you, I might actually be okay with the ISPs spelling out the truth: "We promise X bandwidth for our Comcast High Speed Certified Content Providers (tm) and Y bandwith to the real internet." But Comcast does not want to spell out the truth. They just want to break the contract and blame someone else, as an excuse to demand more money, precisely because they know that this is area of law exists in a libertarian dystopia where it is not practical for individual customers to enforce the contracts in court./p?
As someone who has played little chess but quite a few war/board games, the article is unsurprising, too. At first glance, chess looks like an offense heavy game. In offense heavy games, aggressive moves, even aggressive moves from novices, often provoke errors from novices forced onto defense. But as the game is studied, how to build efficient defenses with implied counterattacks converts offensive potential into defensive potential. Not every game works out that way, but the ones we keep going back to play again and again certainly do.
We could imagine a variant of chess where the first player advantage were much larger. If 80% of the victories went to white, chess would just not be considered as interesting a game. A degree of lopsidedness can actually add to the game, playing black is a slightly bigger challenge, but there is a point where people tend to throw up their hands. The lopsidedness between colors in chess is quite small, as these things go.
The article is a really painful read that takes forever to get to the heart of its points, which seem to be:
In fact, ISP price discrimination is as likely to help new entrants as hurt them. Non-neutrality offers startups the potential to buy priority access, thus overcoming the inherent disadvantage of newness. With a neutral Internet, on the other hand, the advantages of incumbency can't be routed around by buying a leg-up in speed, access, or promotion.
That an incumbent content provider might enter into an agreement with an ISP to gain advantage over its smaller competitors in a non-neutral environment may be a reason to scrutinize such agreements under existing antitrust laws. For instance, if an ISP with dominant market share refused to give access to online content that competed with its own, antitrust law might look askance at such conduct. But it doesn't justify presumptively hamstringing an ISP's commercial arrangements when such conduct isn't remotely typical."
These are actually gobsmacking arguments for any serious libertarian to make. First of all, the idea that a new service should rightly throw money at the problem because new guys cannot compete by merely being simply better on an even playing field completely demolishes the heart of libertarian theory. Second of all, "gee, the gov't might save us from this abuse with antitrust laws" is an endorsement of the idea gov't should solve these kinds of problems. If antitrust law is good, perhaps net neutrality rules would be better? You cannot fall back on gov't competence in an argument against gov't oversight.
But for me, neither argument matters, even if they were correct. The real problem is the ISPs are making clear promises to their customers, and then they are trying to shake down the content providers with the threat of failing to meet the customer's reasonable expectations, based on what is written in the contract. When I pay for a promise for bandwidth, I want that bandwidth. I do not want the ISP to make secret re-negotiations about what bandwidth really means.
Actually, you counterargument does not address sribe's point at all. An UNARMED suspect fleeing the scene is (almost) by definition someone who fails to meet the threshold of "poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others".
In fact, even an armed suspect may fail to meet that standard, which is the actual reason the courts spelled this out in the first place. "Well, he was armed and seemed angry and failed to comply with police orders" is not sufficient reason to gun down a fleeing suspect, unless you know specifics about the suspect that indicate that they are someone likely to use lethal force.
It may not be a dystopic story, but it takes place in an extremely dystopic setting that seems sophisticated to teenagers because it employs slightly subtle royalist and "ends justifies the means" arguments. The idea that there could be non-feudal or non-authoritarian forms of gov't that could sway the human future are simply handwaved away with the suggestion that such societies can never effectively compete.
As for the story itself, is not clear that Paul makes the world a better place in any clearly positive nameable way. It is implied he prevents complete evil (the Harkonnens) from making a grab for the imperial throne. But the fact the Harkonnens could even attempt that is really a side effect of the nominally religious Bene Gesserit having abandoned pretenses of morality for a chance to seize more power.
"a nuclear program for decades" does not really mean anything. It is a deliberately wishy washy description that could include a single guy with a Physics bachelors who downloads stuff off the web and reads standard textbooks. We built our first bombs in less than three years, after proof that chain reactions were possible at the the Chicago pile, back seven decades ago. With so much useful information about nuclear fission out in the public record today, that a program that last decades without building a weapon is actually evidence of a lack of enthusiasm in going nuclear at all.
The secret of the nuclear bomb is that it is practical to build a nuclear bomb. Any nation who really makes it a priority is likely to succeed within 5 or 6 years. Several nations have demonstrated exactly that.
Even if Iran does not use weapons directly, they can provide small nuclear devices to terrorist groups. We'll be seeing those within a few years. Iran has backed a number of terrorist groups (like Hamas) for many, many years.
But even for direct attacks from Iran - remember that Iran is full of many, many people who are basically innocents, rules by leaders that are almost wholly insane and do not care if their own people die.
If Iran were actually ruled by leaders who thought that the 12th Iman would return and kiss their own crispy foreheads as well as the crispy heads of their grandchildren, they could have simply rained down conventional missiles on Israel and gotten that response. Why not go to heaven sooner, rather than later?
You do not get the full benefits of membership in the nuclear club by acting crazy. The crazy talk is not actually helping North Korea, it is only causing China to see the day to whip North Korea into better behavior is coming sooner than they expected.
Held onto as a last resort, nuclear weapons are a positive asset. Employed recklessly, nuclear weapons are a liability -- because once you have been proven to be completely reckless, the entire nuclear club with see the reasonableness of scraping your sorry nation off the face of the earth with nuclear fire. Where is the fun in that?
Furthermore, letting nuclear weapons out of your fortified safe places is dangerous. Crazy terrorist groups do crazy things. In the case of Iran, the ME is filled with enemies. Can you be sure it will not be captured and used on YOU? Absolutely sure? Is this a risk that is so worthwhile? Mossad is likely to figure out where the bomb came from -- there are only a few possible sources. So your plausible deniability game does not guarantee anything.
For instance, if you live in Arizona or Alabama or Oklahoma and you think Dems are the lesser evil, you're really wasting your vote on a Democrat presidential candidate because there's zero chance those states will turn blue. If half the Dem voters in those states voted for, say, the Green Party, we'd really start seeing some interesting politics.
You should read up on what Lincoln thought about "splitters". He strongly disagreed with exactly what you suggest, based on his political experiences. One party splitting tends to severely punish the point of view of all those in the split group -- not always, but usually. The problem is that the non-split party has a cakewalk to victory.
BTW, I do sympathize with your point of view, and I often vote for third parties, as well as the major parties.
I really don't believe Romney would have been worse. I really don't see how he could be.
Obama has done everything that people hated Bush for and more.
You have a lack of imagination, my friend. Dear old Mitt as much as admitted that he knew squat about foreign policy. His solution? Call Bibi. Bibi is a man who will stalwartly defend Israel from Iran down to the last drop of American blood.
"I really don't see how he could be." just does not make any sense. Maybe you doubt Mitt would be worse. I can respect that. But not imagining how he could be worse is really not thinking through how much fun we had in Iraq.
However bad you might think Obama has been, we could very easily do much much worst. Enough of the voters saw Obama as a known quantity, and Romney failed to make the case he knew any better.