Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: aldo_14 on June 22, 2006, 03:33:05 am
-
If this doesn't convince you how good it is to break up the internet into a caste system.....then you must have a brain bigger than a small pea.
http://www.internetofthefuture.org/
(reg (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/22/net_neut_a_killer/))
-
Surely every mammal on the planet has a brain bigger than a small pea :D
I see your point btw.
-
Surely every mammal on the planet has a brain bigger than a small pea :D
What about Politicians & Daily Mail readers?
-
Daily mail readers ahhh, " touche' "
-
the way i see it the internet is already screwed up. lets declare butlerian jihad and call it a day :D
-
Ahh, the biting Reg sarcasm we've come to know and love!
-
i was being serious.
-
the way i see it the internet is already screwed up. lets declare butlerian jihad and call it a day :D
You want to declare jiihad on everything, though. I bet you'd declare butlerian Jiihad on cheese if the topic came up.
-
butlerian Jiihad on cheese
Shall we Nuke?
-
someone obviously hasn't met the literature requirements on life.
-
5 A levels
9 GCSEs
4 GNVQ
Mensa pass @ 8,
Regimental LSA Instructor at 18
I spooge because i choose..........
-
5 A levels
9 GCSEs
4 GNVQ
Mensa pass @ 8,
Regimental LSA Instructor at 18
I spooge because i choose..........
Still no Darwin Award yet, though give it time. :nod:
-
^<false joy> REally, Oh please let it be tru :D</false joy> "
You ever play starsiege, the timeline especially is good. The part about the war wich takes place on the "omni-web" may well be a hark at possible events.
-
Ok, first lets get the obvious stuff out of the way. Unlike how the cartoon depicts it, not having Net Neutrality doesn't automagically mean that they can add big fat pipes for voip and digital TV. Also, Net Neutrality wont cause everything to come to crashing halt, or even slow things down.
Two things did bother me though. They said that letting them sort through what is sent will make everything faster and that Net Neutrality stifles innovation. The first one was a down right lie. It speeds some things, like yahoo, at the cost of slowing other things down, like google. I don't really understand how they connected Net Neutrality to stifling innovation, though, so I can't point out how it is flawed.
The pipe analogy doesn't display the situation accurately. Forget it all together, it will only confuse the issue. Here is what will happen. Almost everything will probably follow the same pipe to and from the internet backbone. Then the ISPs will sort for packets coming from the backbone that came from someone who has paid, send them through the last mile, then send the data from whoever hasn't paid, unless they get more from the person who has paid. I don't know how much they intend to discriminate by.
Lack of Net Neutrality is bad for us. ISPs intend to charge content providers for favored service. The ISPs do not own this content, the content providers do. You are paying the ISPs to connect you to the backbone so you can see this content that anyone can provide if they are connected to that backbone. Before the net, freedom of speech was limited to who has the money to broadcast a message. This is a probem in democracies like Russia where things like T.V. channels are controlled either by the government or oil companies. By giving whoever pays the most the largest say, this will no longer be true of the net. It also a problem for little guys like hlp and bloggers, or just people who host their own personal website, who won't be able to pay anything close to what amazon could. It also hurst people who won't pay them out of moral integrity such as google. They gave voip as an example of something that it would be good to give priority. Giving voip priority is a bad idea. Voip currently doesn't work well because it needs to send a lot of data back and forth. Media takes a lot more bandwidth than the text that is used in html code, muds<my friend is hosting one with telnet>, IM conversations, and newsgroup threads. It will clog things up.
I do believe that hands off is a good approach to the internet. To the ISPs and to the government. They provide the wires like we pay them to, we should be able to use them how we choose. Unfortunatly the republican party blocked this bill.
oh, we have a stupid flash thing (http://www.askaninja.com/news/2006/05/11/ask-a-ninja-special-delivery-4-net-neutrality) as well.
edit: Oh yeah, the Christian Science Monitor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Science_Monitor) is a great example of someone who would be hurt.
-
Well, I have to give it to the corporate fat-cats...at least they're getting smarter. Compare this to their laughable copyright protection campaigns, and and it looks like Shakespeare. Maybe if they keep improving their propaganda, in a few decades there will be a hanfull of mentally retarted four-year olds who will actually be convinced.
-
I watched that, and I was pretty convinced.
However, because I have above-average knowledge of how all the stuff that they're describing works, and what Net Neutrality was about, I was left wondering 'wtf does this have to do with net neutrality?'
I find it far more believeable that that cartoon will earn support from normal people who don't spend much time reading up on geeky computer issues, far better than the cartoons against the RIAA and DRM that cast the opposing force as evil villains.
-
I just thought they were talking ****, myself.
-
Marketing at its best, then. Presenting their idea of an internet connection as separate one way lanes would have been a valid analogy if they'd had giant speed limit signs plonked in each one.
-
They're working on the average schmuck's knowledge of How The Internets Work. They use the 'pipeline analogy' because that's a metaphor they can overextend in a direction that supports their arguments. Like any metaphor, it's not valid when overextended.
They imply that different traffic gets a different pipeline. But networks don't work like that; all traffic gets put in the same pipeline from A to B. It gets combined at A and seperated at B.
'Multiplexing' is not a word that exists in the vocabulary of the General Public(TM).
-
Exactly. Implying that the people who see it have a brain the size of a pea, isn't going to make it any less effective on those who are new to the issue and don't have the background required to understand it in-depth (ie the majority of voters).