Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:This article gets the details wrong (Score 4, Informative) 87

by MobyDisk (#47964469) Attached to: Nobody's Neutral In Net Neutrality Debate

I read it again, and I missed the funniest part the first time.

"Imposing utility-like regulation, as in treating broadband like the telephone or even railroad tracks, inevitably creates a bureaucratic morass that in fact slows growth and innovation."

MASSIVE. ANALOGY. FAILY.

The author draws an analogy between broadband and telephone companies. Umm.... broadband companies ARE telephone companies dude. That's like saying "Imagine treating a Collie like a dog, that would be ridiculous!" Applying "utility-like regulation" to regulated monopoly utilities makes perfect sense.

Comparing to the railroad is the best though, because the "net neutrality" laws actually originated with the railroad when they were called called "common carrier" laws. These laws have been in place for hundreds of years, yet it is painted to be some kind of new heavyweight regulation.

Comment: This article gets the details wrong (Score 3, Insightful) 87

by MobyDisk (#47964219) Attached to: Nobody's Neutral In Net Neutrality Debate

As with most mainstream articles on this topic, it just simply doesn't get what network neutrality really is. The problems start with the first sentence.

Net neutrality, the FCC's effort to govern broadband providers who supply Internet access, enters a new chapter as

Net neutrality is not the name of an FCC plan. It is the principle upon which the internet was created. They make this out to be some new regulatory effort, rather than something that has been around for decades.

There's the pro-business side, reflecting the interests of the companies that have paid for the broadband — cable operators and telcos. They naturally want to be able to charge bigger users higher prices

So now the author implies that net neutrality means that they can't charge bigger users higher prices. Bigger users do pay higher prices! They always have, that makes perfect sense. Then it says:

That's the logical growth area of their businesses —charging the distributors of data as well as the consumers (you and me).

Distributors and consumers do pay for their data.

The article is trying to be "nice" to everyone: identify each player in this topic and paint them out to have a reasonable interest. But to do that, the article must omit the core issue which is that cable and telecom monopolies want to double-charge distributors who have already paid. But if you mention that, it is kinda tough to make it look like each side has a fair and balanced interest in this. The article paints out 5 different interested parties, but there are really only two: the greedy monopolies who want to make more money without having to invest in infrastructure, versus everyone-else.

I am loathe to read the article linked within this one titled "RELATED: A Q&A about net neutrality" because I fear yet more inaccuracy.

Comment: Burnout (Score 2) 268

by MobyDisk (#47949519) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: How To Avoid Becoming a Complacent Software Developer?

I have a few thoughts on burnout:

1) Are you sure they ever burning to begin with?
Lots of people didn't start programming because they loved it. Lots of them started because it was a profitable field. They didn't go home and code til 3am in the first place.

2) Make sure you don't confuse burnout with shifting life priorities. I used to go home, grab some Taco Bell, then write code, compete, hack, etc. But now I go home, kiss my wife, eat dinner, and play with my kids. I'd love to code, but I had to cut a lot of that out. Don't think it was an easy realization, as I could write a novel on the topic. But I didn't burnout, I just shifted my priorities. Next step might be taking care of my parents, which will also cut into coding time. :-(

Comment: Re:I FIND THIS HIGHLY... (Score 1) 450

by Jeremiah Cornelius (#47949003) Attached to: Science Has a Sexual Assault Problem

It's a little [illogical] to say a tomato is a vegetable. It's very [illogical] to say it's a suspension bridge.

Logic is a binary function. Something is in a logical set - or it is not. Being illogical is not a synonym for being mistaken. Degrees of precision are irrelevant for set inclusion. Fuzzy logic is not logic.

BTW: It is illogical to conclude that a Tomato in NOT a vegetable, simply because it belongs to a taxonomical subclass, "fruit". It as if I were to say your testicle is not animal.

Real programmers don't write in BASIC. Actually, no programmers write in BASIC after reaching puberty.

Working...