"Net Neutrality" is just a relatively recent political label, for the basic -- and explicit -- design principles that the Internet was built on.
The engineers and comp-sci people who built the Internet used other language (eg. "end-to-end" principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-to-end_principle) and concepts, because their first concern was to create an internet that was flexible, resilient and robust, adaptable to changing circumstances. Early on, it was realized that the best route to meeting these and other concerns was to keep the infrastructure a simple as possible (a.k.a. "dumb pipes" and non-discriminatory in how it handled traffic -- treat packets and end-points/devices as equally as possible.
Now, forward several decades, and we see large corporate interests have managed to gain effective monopoly control over large commercial swathes of the internet, trying to redesign the operation of the internet, to let them monetize their position as defacto gate-keepers controlling access to large segments of the market.
This is no longer an argument about the design principles and egalitarian, meritocratic management of the technological infrastructure, but rather, about effecting commercial control and exploitation over the commerce enabled over that technological infrastructure, by changing the rules of operation and the underlying principles that enabled the infrastructure to be built and to flourish in the first place. If the North American internet had meaningful competition among the infrastructure providers, this debate over "Net Neutrality" wouldn't exist -- the inherent design and principles that governed the Internet's creation and guided its explosive growth to this point would prevent this abuse of what has become a basic utility.
The fact that Net Neutrality has become such a big issue is, itself, an unmistakeable symptom of the pronounced monopolization over internet access, and definitive proof of the growing profound dysfunctionality of the commercial, monopolistic infrastructure providing this service.
And then the government decrees that the peasants shall use Monsanto's wonderful new modern (and expensive) "technology" (GMO seeds that are "more productive" and resistant to Monsanto herbicides and insecticides) instead of the diverse range of locally adapted local varieties that are resistant to drought or flooding or more productive in local soils or other small scale local conditions).
And then the government sends inspectors around to make sure the farmers are complying. So the farmers grow the expensive government mandated GMOs in the fields by the roads, which often do poorly because the conditions have been too wet/dry/hot/cool/whatever, and survive only because they've been secretly (and illegally) growing more reliable, better-adapted, wider variety of "old fashioned", traditional seed stocks away from where the inspectors are likely to go.
> One of the things I hate about paid DLC. Say you buy DLC for Call of Duty 85. > Now instead of match-making choosing between all 10,000 Call of Duty players online, > it will only choose between the 500 players who bought the DLC expansion pack.
I'm not a "gamer", but this caught my attention, and I'm curious -- is this actually how it works?
I myself knew what DRM means (anybody who has to deal with DVDs, online music, or (of course) most computer games has been forced to learn), but not being much of a gamer, DLC was a new term; I believe that I've come across it before -- but not often enough or recently enough for it to stick (though a reference to "hats" might have carried me over).
This hardware-bricking driver "update" is entirely on FTDI.
I'm even sympathetic to their resentment of counterfeiters. In some sense I'm even sympathetic to their resentment of clones and "freeloaders". But I'm NOT sympathetic to FTDI designating any and all "unapproved" clones as "counterfeit" -- clones and "freeloaders" are the inevitable consequence of being a market front-runner. They might not like it, but that doesn't give them the right to play judge, jury, and vigilante.
FTDI knowingly and maliciously designed this driver to behave this way, and passed it on to Microsoft. Windows was merely the mechanism to deliver this malware to end-users, and in this case Windows Update was behaving precisely as designed, and as it should.
Now then, I've been using Linux for nearly 15 years, and I've despised Windows (and especially Microsoft) for longer than that... So I would most cheerfully take advantage of a legitimate opportunity to trash Microsoft -- unfortunately :( this is not that opportunity. This is all on FTDI.
You can teach your children to swim, or you can try to keep them away from any body of water larger than a bathtub, for the rest of their lives. Neither approach is "perfect", but only one of them generally works -- and it's also the one that's actually sustainable.
Re: Re: Re: Re: What if the loser had to pay the court costs?
Well (as NTP vs RIM (Blackbery) showed -- to the tune of over $600 million, no less) successfully invalidating the bogus patents once the legal actions are under way, provides no guarantee that the troll will be defeated, or that the victim will get away relatively unscathed.
There has been a growing trend for larger brewers to make and sell smaller "indie" brews under a different name (trying to cash in on the growth of "micro-brews".
Neither of those brews is available where I live. But if I had noticed the little hiker logo, in conjunction with the colour scheme, I would likely (in fact, probably) have assumed that there was some connection -- a faux micro-brew, a partnership, or just that it was a plain old, subsidiary brand.
I'm not going to take sides on this case. One one hand, there's far too much "IP" abuse out going around; on the other hand, this seems like a legitimate (though not necessarily intentional) instance of potential brand confusion.
I'd love to see the arguments in court, explaining just how the parody is more offensive and discriminatory towards "foreigners" than the original was to the "regular folk" portrayed acting in precisely the same way.
Of course there's the little matter that it's arguably the political "benefactor" who's actually being targeted...
I use my current DSL provider's 6mbps service -- it's the lowest tier of the four they offer (next up would be 15, 25, and 50).
I'd actually be willing to pay the additional fee for a faster tier -- except that the data cap is the same, 100 GB, and I'm finding that I already have to monitor my usage as is, already.
Fortunately, I hear there's at least one or two established, decent DSL competitors in my region, who'll provide more (and for less), and maybe cable as well (thank god I'm not in the USA), so I'm going shopping...