Dispatches from the Boonies

So I went to the coffeshop, and out of boredom started reading the Minot Daily out of the recycle bin. In them (I’m fairly certain there was more than one day in there), I found the following:

1)Half a page just of church ads; 30 total, all different. Most were different flavors of Lutheran, but there was some Baptists, an Assembly of God, and some other versions I’m not familiar with. Noticeably, the two Catholic Churches in town weren’t part of that ad-collection

2)An opinion by the editor of the paper about how “net neutrality” is a bad thing.

3)An opinion piece by Michelle Malkin, whinging about how Obama is politicizing the Census, and how evil it is of the leftists(!) to have Karl Rove(!!) try to use a reference to the Founding Fathers(!!!) to get people to comply with it.

4)A point counterpoint about the RCC drama, with Stephen Prothero on the one side, saying that if only the Church could apologize and promise not to do it again, all would be well. The other side went straight for the bible, pulling out some quote about persecution and harassment of a prophet.

I need to stop reading that stoopid paper. It’s not good for my mental health.

Advertisements

7 comments on “Dispatches from the Boonies

  1. David Marjanović says:

    An opinion by the editor of the paper about how “net neutrality” is a bad thing.

    How does that work?

    An opinion piece by Michelle Malkin, whinging about how Obama is politicizing the Census, and how evil it is of the leftists(!) to have Karl Rove(!!) try to use a reference to the Founding Fathers(!!!) to get people to comply with it.

    :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D

  2. David Marjanović says:

    Hm. Laughing that much doesn’t look good in this font. :o)

  3. Paul says:

    How does that work?

    The general form of the argument (I obviously don’t read the Minot Daily, so I can’t say that this is what was discussed there…but do keep in mind I speak from an American perspective) is that there is too much traffic on the web, and if there are not certain QoS allowances the premium services people desire (HD video, etc) will not have enough bandwidth to be provided at an acceptable quality. It’s not an argument I’m wholly unsympathetic to. It is patently obvious that ISPs oversell their capacity, offering consumers up to 50 times what they could handle because they presume that people will not always be using their connections (presumption of timesharing, as it were). Even though they sell their internet access packages as “unlimited”, they need to assume people will only spend x% of the day using the internet in order to supply their consumers without actually upgrading their infrastructure to handle all of them.

    Of course, I am in favor of net neutrality. If capacity is an issue, ISPs should be realistic with the plans they offer consumers. They should not be able to advertise access that you cannot realistically use (and indeed, that they base their business around you not using so they can sell it to other people). If people are consuming too much, then they should move to the model several other countries use and have monthly bandwidth quotas. If ISPs want to remain a common carrier (they do), that seems the only tenable solution. Tossing net neutrality aside means they are choosing what internet sites/services to privilege, which is less acceptable than simply metering things across the board.

  4. Jadehawk says:

    it was more along the lines of “Ebil Gubmint trying to control good, American businesses!!!!” and “if TV stations get to control what their viewers are seeing, then internet providers should get to control what internet users are seeing, too.”

    complete libertarian lunacy.

  5. David Marjanović says:

    Doesn’t an insane amount of traffic come from spam? If that could be cut down somehow, that would free up a lot of bandwidth, wouldn’t it?

    complete libertarian lunacy.

    Especially because it contradicts itself. Which is more important: the freedom of corporations to control what their customers are seeing, or the freedom of people to get whatever information they want?

    Nooooo, don’t answer. I’m not at all surprised the editor chose the first option.

  6. Jadehawk says:

    you know, the people are supposed to “vote with their wallet” for whichever provider gives them the information they want to be getting.

    except here in the real world, there’s usually only one or two providers, and they’re all going to “provide” exactly the same stuff, namely the stuff of whichever internet company throws the most money at them.

    TV sucks so badly, I don’t want the internet to be more like TV :-(

  7. Janine says:

    Stupid is all around, no need to waste it
    You can have a pwned, why don’t you take it
    You’re gonna *facepalm* after all
    You’re gonna *facepalm* after all

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s