in this paper i cover most of the wrongs industry has caused life on earth since the industrial revolution, and in the middle there is a long section on overfishing. just read about what really happens in the fishing industry when you digest news about some part of the ocean being "protected from fishing x years". if you've ever argued with fishing industry professionals when they are being told to cut it out, you know firsthand what a bunch of lying phoney bastards they are when it comes to the environment.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/fbs0...

exactly this

a few things before i start in:

* I actually remember when the EFF was about preventing unecessary regulations and legislation for the sake of avoiding creating bubbles of fantasy land bullshit. The old thinking was that computers don't obey legislation. Now I'm dosheartened to see the EFF actively calling for regulations and laws to force things to be convenient for them. Who the fuck is writing this shit?

* I'm all for net neutrality, because I like the internet as a vital and growing platform for business and creativity, networking and socializing.

So, let me start in.

This shit is a fucking non. Issue.

Look, nobody is paying for the internet just to make a modem connect across miles of line to a distant server just for the wow factor. Nobody is paying for internet service just to ssh to the ISP and >message everyone else who's logged in.

And nobody is paying for internet service just to connect to the WWW pages of their favorite sites just for wow factor, either. The front pages of most web sites and services are really fucking boring and typically just offer shit like legal things to read, contact pages, "about us", etc. Most sites these days don't even offer a site map, so we're talking immensely boring.

EVERYBODY who connects to the internet is connecting to see other users' content.

Nearly every major web site or service exists to host user content: forums; photo hosting; facebook; twitter; youtube, vimeo, vidme; reddit; amazon, ebay, craigslist; they all host user content. The exceptions like netflix, hulu, other entertainment services, let's leave them out of the discussion. Even fucking redbox has a website; so does your local library. But let's acknowledge that even though those sites don't host user generated content, they wouldn't exist without the users who show up to drink from the media tap.

No sites exist just to be on a hard drive somewhere. Well there's weird shit like Zombo.com but I think you get my point: the biggest sites online are all about connecting people to people, and the rest are about connecting people to companies.

Nowhere in ANY of this is the user left out of the equation. The user is part of the flowchart every step of the way. If you think otherwise, sorry, you're fucking retarded.

Which means that the user is in a position to place demands. You want congress to do that for you, that's great, have fun going round and round the cycle of bubble-bust bubble-bust while you strive to maintain the illusion of fantasy land and work on suspending your disbelief.

Some people, notably Stephen King (check his twitter) think net neutrality is about censorship.

Guess what, jerky? It's got shit to do with censorship. We have net neutrality right now, and facebook, twitter, youtube, and google have been censoring what you are allowed to see for over a year, and it's all been politically motivated. If you aren't aware of any of that, either you just got out of prison or, sorry, you're retarded.

Net neutrality is about whether your service providers, the content-less middle men just passing data between you and the sites that exist only to serve you, will get to start charging you to reach those sites. Of course you should feel a little discouraged at that prospect, considering by and large those sites work by not charging you anything (at least not up front. And in the case of twitter, I hear that for $99/mo. you can buy a sponsored content account and boila, no more bans). Without those sites being able to offer that service, those sites don't work out to be as big as they are today. Without those sites being that big, ISPs have nothing much to sell the vast majority of users. Now you can see how and why the user has control, complete and utter fucking control, of the situation.

So here's the fucking deal. Here's how and why net neutrality is a non issue: the user can flip the table by getting the websites on their side.

Here's the proposal:

1. Users get the major sites to agree that ISPs monkeying around with charging users to reach them is like the middle man trying to fuck around with their business.

2. Users point out that this gateway fee is going to put a serious hurt on the future of the heretofore friendly endeavour that the sites and users have been enjoying so far.

3. Users get sites to agree that if anybody deserves that money, it's not the ISPs, who don't know shit about creating content that anybody wants to log in and share.

4. Users get sites to join in on a collective effort: any ISPs that start charging gateway fees to sites, all of the sites will in turn demand that those ISPs pay the sites if they want the users to be allowed on. ALL of the sites. $ per $, user per user. The profitability for the ISP goes right out the window.

5. How do they implement this? Blacklists, whitelists, any way you feel like wrapping your head around it. ISPs blocks of addresses are public record, so it's NOT like this step is the step that has people hung up crybabying to congress like a bunch of bedwetters.

6. The ISPs see the folly of their way and stop terrorizing the user base. In return, they don't fuck up and lose all their sibscribers and the internet doesn't plunge into 5-10 years of rolling brownouts while smaller ISPs who promise not to do that chomp up all the stray dots on the map. Things continue as normal. Welcome to the wild west or however you want to look at it, as long as you're not looking at it as a self-victimizing worthless fucking coward who's cuckolding their own position of power just for the drama of it.

Err: *"transistors are..." -> "transistor logic arrays are..."

Somebody should do a text file in old BBS/Usenet style, titled "Why Your Proposal To Remove Moderation From Slashdot Isn't 'A Thing'."

Yeah, but, where's the example of an implementation that saves anything?

Yeah, but you can create a memory management structure where malloc() always works as long as it's the only program running, I.e. as a platform for any other programs which must also adhere to the rules of the MMS. For example "object-oriented C", where the platform and every program on it are all implemented in OOC.

Not to disparage your remarks, because I think your first two paragraphs word my own objections more fundamentally than I managed to. (As a Math Minor merely requisite to Computer Engineering, I assume it may have been your Major.)

Rather your remarks brought to mind an academic C implementation that heavily relied on malloc() so that the programs written in it wouldn't have to.

More like, transistors are groups of people sitting close together who stand up and hold hands in various ways from where they stand, reaching down with a free hand to grab one hand of another seated nearby, pulling them up and forcing them to turn in a way that decides where and who that free hand in turn can reach. And once you have a given situation someone is supposed to shout something to the teacher and then they all sit down again. The proposal seems to be that just some of them should sit down, but how are you going to determine who? The author doesn't seem to know for sure, either.

This is something that calls for a proof of concept in the form of linear programming. Go ahead, show me the machine tree and its related Karnaugh maps and show this bi-directional computation performing several classic computing staples like stacks, sorts and finding primes in a manner that involves fewer steps.

Information has its limits, too, and laws somewhat similar to thermodynamics appear to govern these limits. If you have some linear function g(c(b(a))) that doesn't necessarily mean you can complete it as g(a,b,c) if c is dependent on b is dependent on a.

For instance, there are bi-directional programming languages but you still are forced to rethink your problem to be solved in a way that work toward the solution is still being done in reverse, and frankly I doubt that all real-world problems have a solution where time=t can be decremented. For starters if you need more than one output for a given input, you're kind of screwed for any linear task.

I have to agree with those who see this as a gag to win more funding. It's the equivalent of bringing again e.g. bidirectional programming over to the the hardware level, and go ahead and find me all the amazing examples of what you can do with bidirectional programming languages (go ahead, there are several and some are a number of years old).

There is some Y(x) amount of articles that are written purely as funding pitches for every X of funding that might possibly be funneled to that research, and some D(x, y) that determines if there's anything of value in the research or the article.

I think you've got the causality wrong.

The silicon medium can only get so thin before it starts becoming improbable that the electrons are where you expect them to be. I remember an article about this in Wired some years ago, talking about Heisenberg Uncertainty, the limits of silicon, and a research team taking advantage of it to produce electron shells without nuclei.

âStupid fucks couldn't make shit if it was clay.â

âI sincerely hope each & every one of these goats gets a nice sharp knifepoint in bad places.â I don't have time to do it, but do it and I'll give you a high five and tell you you're a piece of worm detritus and that you owe me your mother and sister to fuck, and also the nation of Yemen -- if you don't own Yemen, don't bother murdering these dildo tweezers on my behalf, because I'd rather she you eat fried pigs hit from a flayed horse's burrowed out cock, you stupid fuck.

Oh yeah? Well how do you know that the Krefeld Entomological Society aren't ones killing all the damn bugs? There's no way to ever know that for sure, so I say, we play it safe and just assume that's what's really happening. Now the real question is, what are we going to do about it? I say take their shoes off so they won't be able to crush the insects so easily. Take their shoes and laugh at them. That'll bring the fucking bugs back. Their MEMORIES, that is! Which we will all hold in OUR OWN SHOES!

I nominate this comment and it's parent "Comments Of The Day".