|
|
USER COMMENTS BY “ SCOTT MCMAHAN ” |
|
|
| Page 1 | Page 8 · Found: 500 user comments posted recently. |
|  | |  |
|
|
 11/12/11 11:36 AM |
|
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
|
Saying the government should not be involved with network neutrality because it is "socialist" is about like saying the government should not maintain interstate highways for transportation (let Wal-Mart build their own highways - you wouldn't get to use them) or have the FDA stop regulating medicine, and so on. Some government intervention is necessary for society to function.I know I don't want to live in a world where there is tiered Internet access. ISPs essentially want to charge their subscribers for Internet access, as they do now, and then turn around and charge content providers for full-speed access. Only the richest corporations could pay to be on the fastest tier. The Internet would turn into cable TV all over again; small, independent, and new web sites being shunted off to the low-speed ghetto since that's all they could afford. If I'm a "socialist" for not wanting this to happen, then so be it. A neutral Internet is one of the few areas where innovation is still occurring in America. Network neutrality does not refer to the government monitoring speech. All it means is that all network packets are treated as equal by ISPs, who are not allowed to create a tiered Internet where some packets are given a different priority than others. |
|
|
| 11/8/11 6:36 AM |
|
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
|
Wait, SermonAudio wants people to sign a petition AGAINST network neutrality? That doesn't make sense. SermonAudio is exactly the kind of site that will be harmed if network neutrality is not upheld. SermonAudio could not possibly afford to pay for first-class Internet service on the two-tier Internet that would result from abandoning the Internet's traditional packet neutrality. SermonAudio's packets would be shunted off onto a second-class, low-speed Internet reserved for those who can't pay the fees to be on the regular Internet. Small, independent sites like SermonAudio would be hurt most without network neutrality.No one should sign this petition. Network neutrality is the only thing stopping the corporate interests from totally dominating the Internet. Without network neutrality, there would be two Internets. One would operate at full speed, at the highest priority, for content providers who could pay for it. The other would be a second-class Internet with bandwidth restrictions. |
|
|
| 11/1/11 6:08 AM |
|
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
|
This article is not very good. If you actually listen to the audio (posted on the Family Radio site), Camping did not repent. He apologized only for a statement he made.Camping: (1) blamed God, as usual, saying God could have ended the world but chose not to, and this is what Camping has done since May 21; and (2) said we needed to study the Bible more and be humble, which is what he says after a failed prediction (but not before one). (Also, Camping has never questioned his method of Bible study, which has led him to four or five wrong predictions and ought to be called into question.) Note that Camping's web site leading up to Oct 21 said: "Sadly, as we have earnestly studied the Bible over these five months we have found verse after verse that supports and strengthens the conclusion that the Lord is no longer
saving sinners. He has finished that glorious work." This was removed from the site without explanation after Oct 21, and Family Radio has never explained this. I will send their entire statement to anyone who wants it. We can laugh about yet another failed end of the world prediction, but Camping was saying that the day of salvation is over, which is much more serious. I'm surprised no one has called him out on this. |
|
|
| 10/27/11 5:16 PM |
|
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
|
Another thing is that Cambridge and Oxford are able to print the KJV, but otherwise can't enforce crown privilege on the text. If this crown privilege was enforced for a public recitation, it would have to be from the crown, not a publisher. (As far as I understand the situation - people familiar with UK law can correct me.)This still sounds like a scam or a hoax, not sure which. The copyright status of the KJV text is still extremely murky (especially since there wasn't a single, fixed text until the 1760s), but the crown of England has never tried to assert its ownership of the text over the centuries, and the weight of this precedent would make any modern claim difficult to enforce - why start now when they've basically let the text fall into the public domain? Would be strange though if publishers had to switch to the Geneva Bible because of intellectual property concerns over the KJV. |
|
|
| 9/30/11 3:33 PM |
|
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
|
Anyone can monitor anything you say on Facebook or Twitter. Isn't that the point of social networking? What's the big deal? There's so much chatter on these social sites I don't see how anyone could keep up with it. And anyone with an ax to grind would sign up to be the Fed's "friend" just to post their opinionated writing so the Fed could see it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
