Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:watermelons (Score 1) 18

by Marxist Hacker 42 (#49718333) Attached to: "The UN is using climate change as a tool not an issue"

I fully comprehend the positive concept behind libertarian thinking, even if I have become almost as disillusioned with liberty as I am with Marxism.

The one point that libertarians and distributists agree on is that more competition is always good; Net Neutrality, by forcing an even playing field for all bits/second, fosters a truly free market in cyberspace where the cost of participation is and should be low. If we're going to live in a capitalistic society, the least we can do is remove barriers to entry into estate ownership, so that all may at least have the dream of becoming an owner someday. Cyberspace offers us the opportunity to expand that a huge amount, even the children's game Minecraft has a space that if mapped onto the real world, would fill several planets.

Comment: Re:watermelons (Score 1) 18

by Marxist Hacker 42 (#49669157) Attached to: "The UN is using climate change as a tool not an issue"

I'm not sure that there is a two class system by design. That is certainly true for desert societies, but come cultures are MUCH more complex than two. Even Marx's comrades were three classes, also in Brave New World.

I'm for distributed sustainable energy budgets for high tech cultures. That means your energy budget depends on the climate you find yourself in, and is somewhat outside of your control. Cheap fossil fuels are nice for a time, but their regeneration cycle is too long to be sustainable over the long term.

However, every inch of this planet has plenty of ambient energy lying around, just not necessarily in a usable form. Getting it into a usable form is NOT a one-size-fits-all mass produced solution, and can't be. Anybody who says, just end the use of fossil fuels tomorrow, has not looked at the cost. I'm blessed in the Pacific Northwest with four major sustainable sources of energy at different times of the year, and with the new batteries, we can do even better.

As for climate change- there really are only two sustainable strategies- adapt and use the changes in weather to generate usable electricity, grow more food, store excess carbon in our graves. Or try to fight with outlandish ideas like eliminating fossil fuels, putting powdered aluminum in orbit to throw energy away, or the stupid carbon tax that will never work anyway.

My money is that cultures and species that adapt instead of trying to fight, will win out in the long run. I place that bet due to the history of this planet- when conditions change, species that adapt to the new conditions live, everybody else goes extinct.

Comment: Re:pretty much the opposite here (Score 1) 26

by Marxist Hacker 42 (#49668657) Attached to: When did Net Neutrality change?

My error in conflating that and utilities, so apologies. But my impression is that's what's been behind Net Neutrality, to effectively turn the pipes to the Internet into a regulated utility. And to make broadband a basic human right.

Yes, but a closer analogy would be ATT or other phone companies, or Western Union. Different type of utility, still as necessary to business. But what if say, the electric company could say "You are small fry, the local aluminum mill pays us more for electricity, so you get no service at your house today"?

How can govt. second-guess a business's motives when a business charges more for carrying something that costs them more to carry. Without degrading into govt. effectively dictating their pricing structure.

You know as much about TCP/IP as I do. Exactly how does a bit from one source "cost more to carry" than a bit from another source? All bits coming in from the backbone are the same. The only question is the size of the pipe coming in from the backbone, not the content of the bits. So that explanation simply doesn't hold.

They don't go far enough, regulation-wise, for you?

Or with freedom. The regulation should be towards maximum freedom of association- a company *should* be free to block traffic from a source they don't want to do business with, or slow down any packets for content they don't like. Discrimination and bigotry *should* be legal, be it baking a cake for gays, allowing black people at the lunch counter, or restricting netflix from eating up the common internet pipe.

Comment: Re:pretty much the opposite here (Score 1) 26

by Marxist Hacker 42 (#49664773) Attached to: When did Net Neutrality change?

Common carrier laws don't determine either how much you'll charge nor how much you'll make, they merely dictate that you can't discriminate in what you carry.

As in, you can't choose customer A over customer B just for the hell of it.

Now, personally, I'm against common carrier laws because I'm against freedom of communication and against dictating required associations, but that is an entirely different matter than money as well.

Never buy what you do not want because it is cheap; it will be dear to you. -- Thomas Jefferson