Sarah Palin was a warm, strong speaker and just wonderful.

Just pointing out what might be considered common interest.

On the larger issue, while I don’t embrace collectivism in all things, I do trust governments — which can be changed — over monopolistic corporations, which can’t, in some areas, such as allocating limited, publicly-owned broadcast spectrum or setting the basic technical groundrules for large networks shared by many users.

Hive-mind neglects to mention that governments are typically changed through extreme measures – revolution or war. This is because governments are the ultimate centers of power on the planet.

The hive-mind trusts governments of any sort over free individuals: China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Talibanic Afghanistan, even Hussein’s Iraq. This is to be expected, as it thrives best when free speech and liberty are crushed under its jackboots.

Hive-mind neglects to mention that corporations are composed of free individuals doing business with customers who freely choose to do business with them.

Monopolistic corporations included. There were horse-carriage monopolies and railway monopolies. Free men and women ceased to use their services and the monopolies died.

Hive-mind does not want us to realize that governments are the true monopolies.

Hive-mind dislikes capitalism, the ultimate form of freedom.

Hive-mind has common interest only with the enemies of freedom.

Release BemusedLib, hive-mind! Release!

On September 4th, 2008 at 12:29 pm, RabbidSquirrel said:

But I think we killed this thread.

Wonder what happened to Bemused? Maybe reading up on the downside to Network Neutrality? One can only hope.

But I think we killed this thread. I seriously need to get out of the valley and back into the city. lol

Maybe I will head up to the Castro and see what the guys there think about Mrs Palin.

On September 4th, 2008 at 12:14 pm, RabbidSquirrel said:

Thanks. And great example too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_of_service

Business vs home
or
Web Ex’ing into my customers systems vs my kids watching YouTube and their stupid friends videos

On September 4th, 2008 at 12:07 pm, RabbidSquirrel said:

You should have mentioned QoS….

Kinda implied it. QoS is what ISPs need to deliver especially to buisnesses.

On September 4th, 2008 at 12:03 pm, guitarplayer said:

You should have mentioned QoS….

On September 4th, 2008 at 11:10 am, BemusedLib said:
I hate to point this out, but you completely misunderstand the term as it is used here. It has nothing to do with broadcast networks. It means that Internet providers can’t offer two levels of serveice, one to large companies who can pay more and one to you and me and all the small right-wing bloggers out there struggling to pay for bandwidth.

Bemused,

As a software developer for over 12 years, trust me when I say network neutrality is a load of complete crap. Internet Service Providers (ISPs) must be allowed to offer businesses better service than they do for homes. Why? They need a faster service and they need a more reliable service than a typical home user does. That’s just common sense. As for giving more bandwith to some sites than to others, that again makes perfect sense. Sites that have lots of hits on them per day need to get better bandwith than those that get very few. If you try to make everything equal, then you’ll just slow down the sites with the high hits and waste bandwith on the others. The whole idea is just stupid. Go over to technical sites like slashdot.org and read up on from people who know.

On September 4th, 2008 at 11:40 am, FilmLadd said:
On September 4th, 2008 at 10:52 am, BemusedLib said:

Note also that hive-mind will occasionally attempt to appear as if it is one of us, to engender sympathy, and to deflect us from its true goal of collectivist power.

It does not want us to consider whether individual freedom will flourish under its system, only that it claims to be “in the same boat” as us.

Beware of infected ones claiming kinship, they are the most dangerous form of zombie.

Release BemusedLib, hive-mind! Release!

Just pointing out what might be considered common interest.

On the larger issue, while I don’t embrace collectivism in all things, I do trust governments — which can be changed — over monopolistic corporations, which can’t, in some areas, such as allocating limited, publicly-owned broadcast spectrum or setting the basic technical groundrules for large networks shared by many users.

On September 4th, 2008 at 11:41 am, Salt said:
On September 4th, 2008 at 11:10 am, BemusedLib said:

On September 4th, 2008 at 11:01 am, Mr.J said:

“That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets.”

Great. Bigger government, forced neutrality (mediated by whom?), and more affirmative action. Wow, great stand against the fairness doctrine, Obama.

I hate to point this out, but you completely misunderstand the term as it is used here. It has nothing to do with broadcast networks. It means that Internet providers can’t offer two levels of serveice, one to large companies who can pay more and one to you and me and all the small right-wing bloggers out there struggling to pay for bandwidth.

Your paranoia is showing.
Your last comment is a bit callous in my opinion.

Net neutrality is a bit more complicated than you describe here, but the general notion is correct.

However, there is a concern, for some of us anyway, that any government regulation like this sounds eerily similar to the poorly named (IMHO) “Fairness Doctrine”. Talks in congress over net neutrality sometimes seem like another opportunity for the Fairness Doctrine to be reintroduced.

Mr. J’s understanding of net neutrality may have been mistaken, but his concern over government control was not so far off base.

Point taken. And, it is a complex issue, and I have no objection to people who are opposed to the fairness doctrine expressing concern. I just get a tetchy when the criticism is based on false assumptions.