OT: Will non net-neutrality kill the internet?

[Willem]

John Kelly wrote:
) On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 21:37:52 +0000 (UTC), Willem
)
)>John Kelly wrote:
)>) But if there is no God, then why does the universe exist at all? Why is
)>) there not merely a void of nothingness? Mathematically, is a void of
)>) nothingness more probable than a universe consisting of matter? Can you
)>) devise a proof, or counter proof?
)
)>Easy: There is an almost uncountable number of possibilities for what
)>a universe could look like.
)>The number of possibilities with little or no matter is vanishingly small
)>when compared to the number of possibilities with a lot of matter.
)>Therefore, a universe with a lot of matter is very much more likely.
)>And even moreso, a void of nothingness is just one single possibility.
)>So that is nigh-on impossible.
)
) No. Where did the matter come from?

You're begging the question.
Matter does not have to 'come from' anywhere.


SaSW, Willem
--
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be
drugged or something..
No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT

 

[Chris H]

No, it makes him a-moral, and therefore Un-American.

Being un-American is seen as a virtue by the Free World.

 

[Stephen Sprunk]

No, that's common to everybody sane.

I agree, but I'm biased since I'm a liberal.

There are plenty of people who feel it's perfectly justified to force
their choices on others and fine, imprison or even execute those that
don't comply. In most cases, they hide behind a banner of religion and
"morality".

No, that's common to everybody sane, too.

See above.

Unless Person A is a business. _That_ is what liberals are all about.
A liberal would say that Company A is free to royally **** over Person
B, because that's in the interest of business freedom, and "therefore"
good for personal freedom. A socialist, OTOH, would prefer Person B
to be protected from Company A's rapacious practices, because that's
good for personal freedom, and who knows, Company A might even get
Person C to go to bed with it.

You appear to be using definitions of "liberal" and "socialist" that I'm
not familiar with.

No, it makes him a-moral, and therefore Un-American.

I disagree, but unfortunately roughly half of the US population really
does think that way.

S

 

[Robert Redelmeier]

And how is this relevant to the _free_ world?

The USA is a populous nation with large trading and military
footprints. Many things that happen in the USA get emulated
by other countries. Only rarely by force.

Well, yes, it would have been, but since it was the FCC,
it didn't happen in that kind of country at all.

Merely because one part of a government did something does not
mean it represents the desires of the whole country. Did you,
or even a majority of Nederlanders support (recently ended)
sending your troops into Afhanistan? Legalization of pot?

The USA has check-and-balances where democracy is not a goal
in and of itself, but one tool to achieve the real goals of
"Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness". In this case,
the FCC supported the private-property interest over what
in other countries would be called social interests.

I think the whole net neutrality thing will prove out to be
a red herring. It is commercially unviable: Google and big
sites will not tolerate it from its ISP chain. Consumers will
complain if services are degraded. If it actually gives some
service an advantage, rivals will sue under anti-trust.

Does it allow them to block trolls by the name of Pemberton?
If so: bring it on.

Rod may be many things, but he is no troll ("one who posts
specifically to elicit reaction, not to advocate a viewpoint")
Your namecalling betrays you. If you really wish to block
Rod, use a newsreader that has killfile capability.


-- Robert

 

[BGB / cr88192]

I agree, but I'm biased since I'm a liberal.

There are plenty of people who feel it's perfectly justified to force
their choices on others and fine, imprison or even execute those that
don't comply. In most cases, they hide behind a banner of religion and
"morality".

I personally believe reliogion and morals are more about a person
maintaining their own moral standing, rather than trying to enforce a good
standing on everyone else.

granted, in a theological sense, keeping good morals in themselves, will not
get one into heaven (especially if the person sees their moral behaviors as
some way of making themselves better than others who have fallen into
depravity, since this would be counter to morals).

similarly, a person who makes an honest mistake may be forgiven, but a
person who keeps good behavior, but has an impure heart, will not escape
guilt.

See above.


You appear to be using definitions of "liberal" and "socialist" that I'm
not familiar with.

yes, and very different from US definitions...

I disagree, but unfortunately roughly half of the US population really
does think that way.

I don't personally see the reasoning here...

as I see it, an a-moral person sees value in using morals, or disregarding
them, more in terms of how it will lead to personal advancement (like, well,
if I bend this little rule here, I may be able to get some money or get a
promotion, ...).

I just don't believe in trying to force moral behavior on others, unless
there is some obvious benefit, and feel it is more a matter of others
choosing whether or not to do the right thing.

I think this is a different matter.


granted, nothing stops a person from being immoral, so long as they
acknowledge this, and accept the respective guilt for doing such. the
problem is when one violates morals and feels they are "justified" in doing
this.

an example of the difference would be:
a person visits a prostitute, and then chooses to kill her rather than
giving her the money for her services;
one person may think, "well, this is not the right thing to do, and the
police will probably arrest me if they find out I did it, but $300 is a bit
steep, so it may be worthwhile";
another person may think "well, this person is a whore and just wants to
take my hard-earned money, and no one will miss yet another whore being
taken off the streets, ...".

granted, the end effect, and requisite guilt (both legal and moral) exists
in both cases, although, the way they view themselves and the nature of
their actions may be different (one may acknowledge their guilt, and another
may try to feel they still did the right thing by projecting all of the
guilt onto the prostitute herself).

a more reasonable person may think, "well, I may face going to hell for
this, and given one can think in this way beforehand, it is unlikely that
pennance would cover for this", or maybe "there is an unreasonably high
chance that the police would identify me as the killer, and this leaves an
unreasonably high probability of a prison sentence, and so parting with $300
is likely the better course of action".

or something like this...

or, a more reasonable person may conclude that due to the many costs
involved, a person is better off not going to the prostitute in the first
place (and instead just going and watching porn or similar).


or such...

 

[BGB / cr88192]

John Kelly wrote:
) On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 21:37:52 +0000 (UTC), Willem
)
)>John Kelly wrote:
)>) But if there is no God, then why does the universe exist at all? Why
is
)>) there not merely a void of nothingness? Mathematically, is a void of
)>) nothingness more probable than a universe consisting of matter? Can
you
)>) devise a proof, or counter proof?
)
)>Easy: There is an almost uncountable number of possibilities for what
)>a universe could look like.
)>The number of possibilities with little or no matter is vanishingly
small
)>when compared to the number of possibilities with a lot of matter.
)>Therefore, a universe with a lot of matter is very much more likely.
)>And even moreso, a void of nothingness is just one single possibility.
)>So that is nigh-on impossible.
)
) No. Where did the matter come from?

You're begging the question.
Matter does not have to 'come from' anywhere.

I think one claim is that most heavy matter came from stars.
the stars essentially form from hydrogen, produce heavy elements internally,
and then "explode" spewing out much of their contents (and often leaving
cores which become neutron stars or black holes).

hydrogen can form in free space as a result of interactions between high
energy photons, or from things like neutron decays, ...

I guess there are also cases where protons and electrons can appear out of
"nowhere", ...

 

[Maxim S. Shatskih]

Funny how the introduction of capitalism under Comrade Putin

Companero, not Comrade. Comrade is _anti-communistic_ word from the Spanish Phalanx and IIRC even Nazis.

It was Yeltzin who introduced the capitalism in Russia and not Putin.

hasn't changed much of that, isn't it?

Changed a lot. Not for governemental bureaucrats though.

 

[Maxim S. Shatskih]

Company A is free to royally **** over Person B,

Define "royally ****" in this context.

A socialist, OTOH, would prefer Person B to be protected from
Company A's rapacious practices, because that's good for personal
freedom

Oh no. Socialist would prefer Person B to be protected from Company A by _Governement C who should royally **** the Company A_. And yes, the Person B is either not free from Governement C, and will also be royally fucked.

Liberals are about "entrepreneurs must rule the world".

Socialists are about "governemental bureaucrats must rule the world".

 

[Willem]

BGB / cr88192 wrote:
) I think one claim is that most heavy matter came from stars.
) the stars essentially form from hydrogen, produce heavy elements internally,
) and then "explode" spewing out much of their contents (and often leaving
) cores which become neutron stars or black holes).
)
) hydrogen can form in free space as a result of interactions between high
) energy photons, or from things like neutron decays, ...
)
) I guess there are also cases where protons and electrons can appear out of
) "nowhere", ...

There is one corollary of the uncertainty principle that states
that a region of space can not be completely void, because then
you would know exactly what was there (IE nothing), and that is
impossible, according to the principle. So therefore, whenever
there is enough 'nothing', something will spring into place, so
that there is sufficient uncertainty about what there is there.


SaSW, Willem
--
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be
drugged or something..
No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT

 

[John Kelly]

) I guess there are also cases where protons and electrons can appear out of
) "nowhere", ...

There is one corollary of the uncertainty principle that states
that a region of space can not be completely void

Heisenberg assumed three dimensional space to be an axiom. But there is
no rational reason for the three dimensions of space to exist at all.

Astronomers may find a region of space with no matter and call that a
"void of nothingness." That's a "soft" void. But I mean a "hard" void,
with no spatial dimensions at all.

Without spatial dimensions, there can be no universe. And without God,
there can be no spatial dimensions, and thus no universe.

Heisenberg had no idea.

 

[Rui Maciel]

And how is this relevant to the _free_ world?

Your comment reveals some ignorance in the subject. Once a country with such a massive internet
presence enables their service providers to shape traffic as they see fit then every time you try to
access a server through a network managed by those service providers your connection will be subject
to the traffic shaping imposed by that particular service provider.

Besides that, this sort of policy tens to be shoehorned into other countries for the sole
sake/excuse that "other people are doing it".


Rui Maciel

 

[ImpalerCore]

Yeah some of these clowns expect God to appear in person before they
will believe.

Exodus 33:20

And by the same token, some of us creationist clowns expect
naturalists to create a process to construct DNA, cells, and multi-
celled organisms in the lab, from scratch no less. Some of them even
have the audacity to ask them to produce a natural environment capable
of reproducing that process, preferably by several different people to
remove any bias and reduce the uncertainty that it wasn't a fluke.
And they better hurry up, since all of us have only a few decades to
live and can't wait around for thousands or millions of years to see
how it's done. Get some funding to get more Urey-Miller style
experiments back up and running again.

And if they get that figured out, next on the list, creating your own
big bang. Evidently some people in the audience expect to see them
demonstrate a big bang before they believe; they just won't accept
other people's word for it. Better keep your eyes open though, blink
and you might miss it.

It's a shame that most of us miss the biggies.

 

[Nick Keighley]

The trick is finding the moral society. Humans haven't yet.

we've got approximations. If you're posting on here you probably
aren't running for your life. And you have electricity and an internet
connection. Some societies function.

...nor does the religion of atheism suffice.

atheism isn't a religion
baldness isn't a hair colour

...and others would make you president. Just this week.

so I'd rather live in the first sort. I was simply refuting his
opinion that atheists are immoral. Or societies that are largely
secular are necessarily unpleasant or unstable

nice snip! "Religious people like you scare me [because you appear to
need a god to restrain your violent and immoral nature]"

So do ignorant atheists (but I repeat myself).

ignorant atheists scare me less

In fact, so do ignorant
fundamentalists of _all_ sorts (but I repeat myself again), which, IME,
includes most atheists - or at least, most people who argue for atheism
on Usenet.

I'm not proselytising. If you happy with a particular religion or
without any that's down to you. I merely object to some of the
mythologising and outright lies.

 

[Nick Keighley]

I personally believe reliogion and morals are more about a person
maintaining their own moral standing, rather than trying to enforce a good
standing on everyone else.

good for you. Though laws when they approximate morality have a degree
of compulsion.

granted, in a theological sense, keeping good morals in themselves, will not
get one into heaven (especially if the person sees their moral behaviors as
some way of making themselves better than others who have fallen into
depravity, since this would be counter to morals).

similarly, a person who makes an honest mistake may be forgiven, but a
person who keeps good behavior, but has an impure heart, will not escape
guilt.

I'll leave theology to the theologians. Take a look at Lutherans
sometime...


I don't quite see the amoral here...

I don't personally see the reasoning here...

as I see it, an a-moral person sees value in using morals, or disregarding
them, more in terms of how it will lead to personal advancement (like, well,
if I bend this little rule here, I may be able to get some money or get a
promotion, ...).

soci-paths. People who are guided by what they can get away with

I just don't believe in trying to force moral behavior on others, unless
there is some obvious benefit, and feel it is more a matter of others
choosing whether or not to do the right thing.

I think this is a different matter.

granted, nothing stops a person from being immoral, so long as they
acknowledge this, and accept the respective guilt for doing such.

but should I feel guilty if I do something you view as immoral but I
don't? Do you get to decide my moral code?

the
problem is when one violates morals and feels they are "justified" in doing
this.

whose morals?

an example of the difference would be:
a person visits a prostitute, and then chooses to kill her rather than
giving her the money for her services;
one person may think, "well, this is not the right thing to do,

you think?

and the
police will probably arrest me if they find out I did it,
probably!?

but $300 is a bit
steep, so it may be worthwhile";
another person may think "well, this person is a whore and just wants to
take my hard-earned money, and no one will miss yet another whore being
taken off the streets, ...".

I find your example telling. Is it less immoral to kill a prositute
than a nun?

granted, the end effect, and requisite guilt (both legal and moral) exists
in both cases, although, the way they view themselves and the nature of
their actions may be different (one may acknowledge their guilt, and another
may try to feel they still did the right thing by projecting all of the
guilt onto the prostitute herself).

personnaly I think they should both be banged up for a good long
time.

 

[Nick Keighley]

one part of a government did something does not
mean it represents the desires of the whole country. Did you,
or even a majority of Nederlanders support (recently ended)
sending your troops into Afhanistan?  Legalization of pot?

actually it's "decriminalisation". I think the Netherlands are
signatories to international treaties that preclude complete
legalisation. I suspect there is a rough concensus on the subject in
the Netherlands (I'm not Dutch but I have Dutch relatives). They are
much more likely to take the attitude that "victim free crimes" aren't
really suitable for the state to enforce. Many other european
countries have taken similar stances.Even the UK has flirted with
decriminalisation of possession of smallamounts of cannabis. The
police often find it a pain and a waste of resources pursuing and
prosecuting such people.

<snip>

 

[Richard Bos]

In message <[email protected]>, Richard Bos

Being un-American is seen as a virtue by the Free World.

More or less my point, yes.

Richard

 

[Chris H]

In message <[email protected]

It's a shame that most of us miss the biggies.

Evolution and God creating the Universe are not mutually exclusive.
God created the universe and the rules by which it runs. Some of those
rules are Evolution of the species, physics etc SO after God created
the first living thing it ran along God's rules of evolution as Dawin
was able to show. He id not invent evolution.... he documented the rules
and effects God set up.

The problem arises when a bunch of egotistical self important wannabee's
start Religions claiming to know how god things and what he said.

I would not mind if the Religion lot had something to back up their
argument. All I see is they quote from a book of semi-historical myths
and we are expected to believe that their book is right and all the
others are wrong.

The one that amuses me the most is the Christians.... given the very
chequered history of their religious book.

Especially when they come out with the world starting 6K years ago when
all the very many inter linked cultural histories around the world and
related science & archaeology goes back a lot further.

 

[BGB / cr88192]

I personally believe reliogion and morals are more about a person
maintaining their own moral standing, rather than trying to enforce a good
standing on everyone else.

<--
good for you. Though laws when they approximate morality have a degree
of compulsion.
-->

yes, however, laws are typically reserved for more severe cases, whereas
"keeping good morals" usually refers more to minor cases.

for example: killing someone is a greater crime than fornication, for
example...
one deserves a law, the other is free choice.
however, both may well still be immoral.

the difference is mostly in terms of social impact:
in the past, people found guilty of fornication would have been socially
obligated to marry, but usually with few hard feelings after the fact.

in the case of someone being killed, many more people will be effected by
the persons' loss.
similar reasoning places financial crimes in a similar category, since they
have wider social impact.

granted, in a theological sense, keeping good morals in themselves, will
not
get one into heaven (especially if the person sees their moral behaviors
as
some way of making themselves better than others who have fallen into
depravity, since this would be counter to morals).

similarly, a person who makes an honest mistake may be forgiven, but a
person who keeps good behavior, but has an impure heart, will not escape
guilt.

<--
I'll leave theology to the theologians. Take a look at Lutherans
sometime...
-->

I am going by a relatively literal interpretation here...


generally, it is understood (including by people like Catholics and
similar), that for things like confession to really work, one generally
needs to feel guilt or remorse.

if a person doesn't feel any guilt for what they have done, then something
like confession is an empty ritual.

howerver, other parts of RC theology get a little confusing, since I guess a
person can get to heaven anyways via going through Mass enough times...



<--
I don't quite see the amoral here...
-->

yeah, it is more about decision making.
if a person knows the costs, and is willing to accept them, then the
decision remains rational.
justification or denial can't remove any of the costs, but does make the
decision no longer rational.

it is like buying a car: one gets the car (a good thing), at the realization
that they will be faced with car payments (a bad thing). but, one may still
choose to buy the car despite the cost of having to make payments.

I don't personally see the reasoning here...

as I see it, an a-moral person sees value in using morals, or disregarding
them, more in terms of how it will lead to personal advancement (like,
well,
if I bend this little rule here, I may be able to get some money or get a
promotion, ...).

<--
soci-paths. People who are guided by what they can get away with
-->

I suspect probably many normal people think this way as well.
like, people will cut corners here and there on all sorts of things, and
then act like they had not done so.
other people will just look for loopholes, and do what they want this way.

this kind of behavior may make someone a jerk or maybe a criminal, but I
don't necessarily think it makes them a sociopath.

it is like, is every gang member who will willingly steal ones' car stereo,
or hubcaps, or tires, a sociopath? doubtful.

I just don't believe in trying to force moral behavior on others, unless
there is some obvious benefit, and feel it is more a matter of others
choosing whether or not to do the right thing.

I think this is a different matter.

granted, nothing stops a person from being immoral, so long as they
acknowledge this, and accept the respective guilt for doing such.

<--
but should I feel guilty if I do something you view as immoral but I
don't? Do you get to decide my moral code?
-->

most people agree on most things, from what I have observed.
most places where lots of people disagree is on typically stupid or trivial
matters (stuff like interpretation of phrases, meanings of words in the
dictionary, ...).

for what it is worth, morals tend to be fairly close to being a simple
matter of right vs wrong in most cases, and in the future it may well be
possible to measure and determine the rightness and wrongness of a
particular line of action (although, admittedly, I have not determined how
one would do so).

like, maybe eventually, ethics will cross the line from being philosophy to
being a science?...

the
problem is when one violates morals and feels they are "justified" in
doing
this.

<--
whose morals?
-->

general morals...


back to the example of someone killing a prostitute: is their any real way a
person can morally justify killing her to save some money, if he himself had
made use of her services.

to take a vigilante stance, one would also need to not make use of them;
and, to make use of them, one is obligated to pay them.

these sorts of scenarios should not be outside the scope of what most people
can easily determine and agree upon (probably regardless of race or
religion), yet this is the sort of situation where most notable moral
violations will take place...


note: I say that most people can likely agree on what is right and wrong,
but I don't personally believe it is personal views and feelings, or even
cultural biases, which make it as such, but rather that right and wrong
exist somewhere in the system, and most people are likely aware of its
existence and nature to a greater or lesser extent, only that maybe some
people will have a weaker sense to what is right or wrong, and others will
choose to ignore it for sake of their own gain...

an example of the difference would be:
a person visits a prostitute, and then chooses to kill her rather than
giving her the money for her services;
one person may think, "well, this is not the right thing to do,

<--
you think?
-->

yeah.
in this case, she would be selling a service, and killing the seller to
avoid payment is essentially equivalent to theft, in addition to the act of
killing.
similarly, taking vigilante stance would require not using the services.

for example, if a vigilante steals drugs from a dealer and destroys them,
this is one thing.
if a vigilante steals drugs from a dealer and uses them themselves, they are
essentially no different from being an ordinary criminal (since the
underlying premise of being a vigilante is in enforcing justice, which is
only valid so long as ones' actions themselves follow justice).

granted, this does not make it valid in a legal sense, since the police are
also justified in bringing down a vigilante just as they are in bringing
down a criminal (since the role of the police is to bring down anyone who
violates laws, regardless of their reason or cause for doing so).

and the
police will probably arrest me if they find out I did it,

<--
probably!?
-->

yes. there is a certain possibility that:
the cops will not discover the true killer (a certain number of cases go
unsolved, for example, if the killer sucessfully destroys evidence and
avoids suspect behavior);
or, it may be possible to pay off the cops in some cases, such that,
although they know who did it, they will not make an arrest or press
charges.

granted, these are both minority cases, so "probably" reflects the most
likely case: that they will both make the connection and arrest the suspect.

but $300 is a bit
steep, so it may be worthwhile";
another person may think "well, this person is a whore and just wants to
take my hard-earned money, and no one will miss yet another whore being
taken off the streets, ...".

<--
I find your example telling. Is it less immoral to kill a prositute
than a nun?
-->

possibly, uncertain...


since the prostitute both violates the law, and generally lives an indecent
lifestyle, then the likely moral cost for the act is lower than it would be
for an average person (or a person in a clerical position).

however, in using the services of one, one is placed at a similar level to
the prostitute herself, and hence the act can't be justified (which would
typically require someone higher to take the life of someone lower).

this is similar to how it is justified for police or government actions to
kill people, but the common citizen lacks this right, and how criminals are
people to be stomped out (for example, an average citizen would likely be
morally justified in killing criminals in a general context, however this is
not usually the case in US law, which in most places limits this to acts of
self-defense, and there is also a moral obligation that a person follow the
law).

so, for example, having a bunch of people with shotguns "hunting for gang
members" is not necessarily immoral under this interpretation, but would be
illegal in most places, and given the law-following requirement, is made
immoral by extension.


however, a slight issue with this, is that it would likely allow a person to
be both a pope and a warmonger at the same time, which is likely a
problematic interpretation.

granted, the end effect, and requisite guilt (both legal and moral) exists
in both cases, although, the way they view themselves and the nature of
their actions may be different (one may acknowledge their guilt, and
another
may try to feel they still did the right thing by projecting all of the
guilt onto the prostitute herself).

<--
personnaly I think they should both be banged up for a good long
time.
-->

this is a reasonable conclusion...

 

[Maxim S. Shatskih]

<--

I find your example telling. Is it less immoral to kill a prositute
than a nun?
-->

In most Christian cultures, killing a prostitute is as immoral as killing any other non-monastic person, and killing a monk/nun _is even more immoral_.

This is the Christian point of view on the question of life and death. Non-Christian civilizations like Japan or China can have others, so was the post-Christian attempt of the Nazi 3rd Reich.

 

[Stephen Sprunk]

This is proven: matter and anti-matter particle pairs appear in empty
space all the time. This observed phenomenon is (believed to be) the
root cause of Hawking radiation.

However, that _doesn't_ explain why there is so much more matter than
anti-matter in our universe. Theoretically, there should be equal
amounts, so how did the imbalance happen?

Also, we've figured out how to turn matter into energy, so logically it
must be possible to turn energy into matter; however, that just
transforms the question into "where did the energy come from to create
all the matter we observe?"

but the structure in it has to come from some way of think;
laws of phisic can not be the result of one random way

Why not?

they has need someone invent them and build it all

Why? Nobody invented the laws of mathematics, either, and physics is
just applied math. (We may have _discovered_ the laws over time, but
they were always there.)

S