Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • olyclimber

      WELCOME TO THE CASCADECLIMBERS.COM FORUMS   02/03/18

      We have upgraded to new forum software as of late last year, and it makes everything here so much better!  It is now much easier to do pretty much anything, including write Trip Reports, sell gear, schedule climbing related events, and more. There is a new reputation system that allows for positive contributors to be recognized,  it is possible to tag content with identifiers, drag and drop in images, and it is much easier to embed multimedia content from Youtube, Vimeo, and more.  In all, the site is much more user friendly, bug free, and feature rich!   Whether you're a new user or a grizzled cascadeclimbers.com veteran, we think you'll love the new forums. Enjoy!
Sign in to follow this  
Fairweather

Net Neutrality

Recommended Posts

Not sure what's happening in Euroland but in NZ in 08/09 you paid according to the amount of data you used. They sold packages aimed at people who only used the internet for e-mail all the way to up to unlimited.

 

Seemed quite rational and fair - so it has zero chance of ever being implemented here.

 

Steering this back on track;

 

Comcast actually has been doing this since 2012 in certain test markets. They're starting to broaden these "tests".

 

Although amount of data supplied by ISP is not really the issue of net neutrality. It's how the data is supplied and at what rate it's supplied to the end user.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your summary doesn't seem to match the legislation. The legislation says board members acting as advisors are forbidden from reviewing or evaluating their own work. Maybe I need to be a scientist in the EPA to fully understand the magnitude but on the surface the legislation appears as though it is trying to reduce conflicts of interest.

 

Actually I think it is quite accurate.

 

Remember - this has to with the review of scientific data - not a partisan policy debate. And this is a typical GOP, cleverly written law. It allows "stakeholder" review by the states - which translates to appointments by the GOP wackos in TX to review the science - when they can't even allow teaching of evolution in their public school science books.

 

And clearly it is meant to quash the dissemination of science among scientists by blocking peer review (which is a basic principal of good science) by blocking "advisory" work. Really 'gimme a break here. If you don't understand it then I'd suggest deferring to the Union of Concerned Scientists - who know a thing or two about science - and they say:

 

HR 1422, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act, sponsored by vocal EPA adversary Rep. Chris Stewart, R-Utah, would similarly erect pointless roadblocks for the agency. The Science Advisory Board, composed of some of our nation’s best independent scientists, exists not to advocate any particular policy, but to evaluate whether the best science was used in agency decisions.

 

This bill would make it easier for experts with ties to corporations affected by new rules to serve on the SAB while excluding independent scientists from talking about their own research. In other words, academic scientists who know the most about a subject can’t weigh in, but experts paid by corporations who want to block regulations can.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would Congress have anything whatsoever to say about how scientific work is peer reviewed?

 

Conflicts of interest, indeed. What utter bullshit, but then, what else is new?

 

WE NEED KEYSTONE!!! (when we're awash in cheap energy and employment is as low as its been in decades).

 

The agenda is monetize the environment for your pals.

 

It's not exactly a secret.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps we should replace our republic with a directorate composed exclusively of the best and brightest scientists?

isn't that what the whole platonic philosopher-king thang was all about? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps we should replace our republic with a directorate composed exclusively of the best and brightest scientists?

isn't that what the whole platonic philosopher-king thang was all about? :)

 

Even I don't want this. We'd have to wear uniforms as if on the Enterprise, but then again there was Lt. Uhura........ :moondance:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps we should replace our republic with a directorate composed exclusively of the best and brightest scientists?

isn't that what the whole platonic philosopher-king thang was all about? :)

 

I'm thinking that Plato's disdain for democracy--a view commonly held by philosophers throughout the age of reason--bears a remarkable resemblance to the arrogance of scientists that is cited here. Come to think, it also looks a great deal like the arrogance of the theocratic despots who came before. May God and the Collective Consciousness and the Cold Universe somehow conspire to protect us all from the arrogance of these human beings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i never voted for plato, truth be told, and looking for inspiration from greeks given the good times on display there for the past two millenia ain't exactly inspiring neither :)

 

still, if i had to choose between handing over the tiller of state to either the cast of "cosmos" or "honey fucking boo-boo," i can't say it'd take me much musing to make the call - how about you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

from what i know of shaw i wouldn't be suprised if he wanted to kill everyone and i couldn't judge him for it neither :) that said, your 1 minute clip leaves me certainly befuddled as to the context - what i heard there could easily be taken as satire

 

your comment prompted some hard-hitting research on my part - nielsen says honey boo-boo got 2.8 million for its finale in 2012 and cosmos priemered w/ 8.5 million viewers this year, so thank you for reviving my confidence in my fellow meat-puppets :) comedy aside, it's not that un-serious a point - neil de grasse tyson as dictator-for-life dont make me shudder near so much as mama-june - same weekend as the cosmos priemered though the walking dead crushed it by far, n' i aint got no faith in folks who idealize a band of fools who respond to a zombie apocalypse by setting up an unwired camp backed up on an abandoned quarry :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure what's happening in Euroland but in NZ in 08/09 you paid according to the amount of data you used. They sold packages aimed at people who only used the internet for e-mail all the way to up to unlimited.

 

Seemed quite rational and fair - so it has zero chance of ever being implemented here.

 

Steering this back on track;

 

Comcast actually has been doing this since 2012 in certain test markets. They're starting to broaden these "tests".

 

Although amount of data supplied by ISP is not really the issue of net neutrality. It's how the data is supplied and at what rate it's supplied to the end user.

 

Good points.

 

My take on this whole thing is that the bandwidth providers don't want to make the capital investments necessary to handle massive amounts of additional traffic unless they can get paid to do so. As things stand now - there are a few sites that generate a massively disproportionate share of the traffic, and they've basically cut a deal with the cable companies to compensate them for the load they're putting on their networks. Under a model where consumers pay by the gig - this sort of deal-cutting isn't necessary since the amount of money they take in is more directly proportional to the amount of data they move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
from what i know of shaw i wouldn't be suprised if he wanted to kill everyone and i couldn't judge him for it neither :) that said, your 1 minute clip leaves me certainly befuddled as to the context - what i heard there could easily be taken as satire

 

your comment prompted some hard-hitting research on my part - nielsen says honey boo-boo got 2.8 million for its finale in 2012 and cosmos priemered w/ 8.5 million viewers this year, so thank you for reviving my confidence in my fellow meat-puppets :) comedy aside, it's not that un-serious a point - neil de grasse tyson as dictator-for-life dont make me shudder near so much as mama-june - same weekend as the cosmos priemered though the walking dead crushed it by far, n' i aint got no faith in folks who idealize a band of fools who respond to a zombie apocalypse by setting up an unwired camp backed up on an abandoned quarry :)

 

Nothing--and I mean nothing--gets the pure-blood science geeks riled up more than a lowly Saganesque popularizer raking in that capitalist dinero effectivo. :nurd:

 

As for Shaw, yes, he was a supporter of the eugenics movement. And a socialist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure what's happening in Euroland but in NZ in 08/09 you paid according to the amount of data you used. They sold packages aimed at people who only used the internet for e-mail all the way to up to unlimited.

 

Seemed quite rational and fair - so it has zero chance of ever being implemented here.

 

Steering this back on track;

 

Comcast actually has been doing this since 2012 in certain test markets. They're starting to broaden these "tests".

 

Although amount of data supplied by ISP is not really the issue of net neutrality. It's how the data is supplied and at what rate it's supplied to the end user.

 

Good points.

 

My take on this whole thing is that the bandwidth providers don't want to make the capital investments necessary to handle massive amounts of additional traffic unless they can get paid to do so. As things stand now - there are a few sites that generate a massively disproportionate share of the traffic, and they've basically cut a deal with the cable companies to compensate them for the load they're putting on their networks. Under a model where consumers pay by the gig - this sort of deal-cutting isn't necessary since the amount of money they take in is more directly proportional to the amount of data they move.

 

Actually, almost all consumers pay by the gig already and are capped, whether they know it or not. The real issue is that services like Netflix are interrupting the revenue stream of ISP's like Comcast who also sell cable subscriptions. Comcast intentionally slows Netflix because it has various financial interests to do so. The problem lies in the fact that internet subscribers paid for a service and Comcast (among others) is not providing it (stated bandwidth speeds). There are other net neutrality issues but Netflix/consumer-side is the easiest to understand.

 

People and organizations are paying for a service and they are not receiving what they were promised. In my opinion it is fraud. ISP's should not be allowed to restrict service because it interferes with their other commercial interests. They are either an ISP or they aren't. Introducing the FCC into the middle I don't think helps, a good old fashion class action suit is probably a better solution.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As for Shaw, yes, he was a supporter of the eugenics movement. And a socialist.

not so suprising really - very popular ideas at the time, no? can't argue w/ the basic premise in the clip though "you must know a dozen or so people who are of no use" :)

 

anyhow, worth pointing out a line from his wiki entry:

 

"Shaw often used satiric irony to mock those who took eugenics to inhumane extremes and commentators have sometimes failed to take this into account."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As for Shaw, yes, he was a supporter of the eugenics movement. And a socialist.

not so suprising really - very popular ideas at the time, no? can't argue w/ the basic premise in the clip though "you must know a dozen or so people who are of no use" :)

 

anyhow, worth pointing out a line from his wiki entry:

 

"Shaw often used satiric irony to mock those who took eugenics to inhumane extremes and commentators have sometimes failed to take this into account."

 

Once again, Ivan, you are taking a snippet and running with it. And, not surprisingly, I see your meat-filled haul-bag has chimed in on yet another topic he knows little to nothing about. Eugenics was entirely bankrupt--even then--so it's surprising to see you are defending Shaw's "layered" version. In any event, my original point was a response to your question about national leadership. Hard to imaging a more arrogant ass than Shaw. (Well, with the exception of cc.com's rotund megalomaniac anyhow.)

Here's the whole entry; there's plenty to go around:

 

Shaw delivered speeches on the theory of eugenics and he became a noted figure in the movement in England.[80]

 

Shaw's play Man and Superman (1903) has been said to be "invested with eugenic doctrines" and "an ironic reworking" of Nietzsche's concept of Übermensch.[80][81] The main character in the play, John Tanner, is the author of "The Revolutionist's Handbook and Pocket Companion", which Shaw published along with his play. The Revolutionist's Handbook includes chapters on "Good Breeding" and "Property and Marriage". In the "Property and Marriage" section, Tanner writes:

 

To cut humanity up into small cliques, and effectively limit the selection of the individual to his own clique, is to postpone the Superman for eons, if not for ever. Not only should every person be nourished and trained as a possible parent, but there should be no possibility of such an obstacle to natural selection as the objection of a countess to a navvy or of a duke to a charwoman. Equality is essential to good breeding; and equality, as all economists know, is incompatible with property.

 

In this Shaw was managing to synthesize eugenics with socialism, his best-loved political doctrine. This was a popular concept at the time.[82]

Shaw in 1905

 

When, in 1910, Shaw wrote that natural attraction rather than wealth or social class should govern selection of marriage partners, the concept of eugenics did not have the negative connotations it later acquired after having been adopted by the Nazis of Germany.[83] Shaw sometimes treated the topic in a light-hearted way, pointing out that if eugenics had been thought about some generations previously, he himself may not have been born, so depriving humanity of his great contributions.[84] He seems to have maintained his opinion throughout his life.[83]

 

As with many of the topics that Shaw addressed, but particularly so in his examination of the "social purity" movement, he used irony, misdirection and satire to make his point.[75][85][86] At a meeting of the Eugenics Education Society of 3 March 1910 he suggested the need to use a "lethal chamber" to solve their problem. Shaw said: "We should find ourselves committed to killing a great many people whom we now leave living, and to leave living a great many people whom we at present kill. We should have to get rid of all ideas about capital punishment ..." Shaw also called for the development of a "deadly" but "humane" gas for the purpose of killing, many at a time, those unfit to live.[87]

 

In a newsreel interview released on 5 March 1931, dealing with alternatives to the imprisonment of criminals, Shaw says

 

You must all know half a dozen people at least who are no use in this world, who are more trouble than they are worth. Just put them there and say Sir, or Madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence? If you can't justify your existence, if you're not pulling your weight in the social boat, if you're not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little more, then, clearly, we cannot use the organizations of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us and it can't be of very much use to yourself.[88][89]

 

Shaw often used satiric irony to mock those who took eugenics to inhumane extremes and commentators have sometimes failed to take this into account.[80][90] Some noticed that this was an example of Shaw satirically employing the reductio ad absurdum argument against the eugenicists' wilder aspirations: The Globe and The Evening News recognised it as a skit on the dreams of the eugenicists, though many others in the press took his words out of their satirical context. Dan Stone of Liverpool University writes: "Either the press believed Shaw to be serious, and vilified him, or recognised the tongue-in-cheek nature of his lecture".[90][91]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yup, i was defending eugenics all right 9_9

 

i couldn't give a fart in a stiff breeze for old shaw or his ideas- i have actually had the very surgery used by american states that engaged in eugenics though (didn't learn that until after the surgeon already had my nuts well chilled :) ) so at least i can emphatize w/ what them poor fellers endured...

Edited by ivan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, there's always that young lady's Bulger 100 celebration thread--where you're free to continue wearing any lampshade that fits your ego.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×