KLB

Yes, but this only reflects one's one access to the Internet, not how fast some ISP on the other side of the connection will deliver one's content. If I only want to pay for dialup, that is all the speed I get. On the other side of the connection a website owner decides how much bandwidth they need to pay for each month. For instance, I pay for 300 gb of bandwidth per month. Now I don't use that much bandwidth, but it allows for excess capacity just in case. What network prioritization is about is the user's ISP charging the content provider a second fee for priority access to their users. Or put more simply. Some user signs up for ISP "A", my website is hosted by hosting provider/ISP "B". We both have paid for access to the Internet and the slowest of our two connections determines how fast my content is delivered to the user. Now ISP "A" wants me to pay a second toll so that their users can have unfettered access to my content. Remember that my content isn't being pushed to their users. It is being pulled by their users. In otherwords I'm not simply consuming the resources of ISP "A" wantonly, my content is only going across their pipes when their users (who paid for access to the Internet) request information from my website. So basically weithout network neutrality, even though users pay for broadband access to the Internet, they might not get unfettered access to the resources on the Internet they want because their ISP is "prioritizing" their own resources or the resources of their partners.

Exactly. The reasons the big telcoms claim they don't want network neutrality is that they claim it would stifle their abilty to roll out ultra broadband connections (e.g. 100 mbps). With a limited pay-for-prioritisation the Internet as we know it would be able to continue to grow as it has as normal broadband speeds would be not be prioritized. At the same time telcoms would be allowed to recoup their investments in ultra broadband connections by making deals with movie studios etc. to deliver HD Movies at the nearly instantly, which can not be done with normal broadband.

This is the big problem, the big ISPs do all they can to buy out/exclude smaller ISPs. Literally in the broadband category the only choices I have where I live is Verison DSL, TimeWarner Cable or Earthlink via Timewarner Cable. There are no other options and DSL is less than 512 kbps down. So if I want true broadband, I must go with TimeWarner Cable. Most of the United states is the same way. They can only get broadband internet via their local phone company or their local cable company, there are no other options. Don't think this was an accident. The big telcos do all they can to make it hard to enter the market. Telephone companies even used to make it hard for dialup ISPs to get in the market. This is what network neutrality is about, not letting ISPs charge for or prioritize content in a discriminatory basis. Or put another way, it is about not letting them deliver their own content faster than they deliver other people's content. Now I personally believe that there could be some middle ground to this issue, for instance ISPs could be required to provide open access up to 10 mbps down and 2mbps up or the maximum speed of the connection they provide to the user, whichever was less. If their broadband connections were faster than 10mbps/2mbps then they could prioritize the higher speeds as long as it did not interfere with the baseline speed. This would allow telephone companies to deliver ultrahigh bandwidth HDTV quality feeds that could compete with cable companies, while still ensuring a reasonable quality of service for Internet traffic. Now obviously under this idea if the speed of the Internet connection was slower than the minimum baseline then the ISP couldn't prioritize traffic would have to provide an open pipe.

I think this is a good way to measure it.

The key is "if used correctly" who is to define used correctly? Without regulations, it is the ISPs that define this and they have an inherent conflict of interest. Network neutrality runs counter to their primary objective, which is to maximize profits. Regulations create a balanced framework that allows businesses to function on a level playing field. Everyone should keep in mind that up until last year network neutrality was part of the regulations, but it was removed. All people are trying to do is get the regulations reinstated, but this time as a law rather than just a government agency regulation. If it had not been for the network neutrality regulations, does anyone really think that Verison, TimeWarner, etc. would have allowed VOIP services from companies like Vonage, when it was cutting into their abilty to sell their own phone services? Come on now, we all know they would have blocked Vonage. It was the old network neutrality regulations that have allowed the Internet to grow and has fostered real innovation on the Internet.

Quite often this does already happen. When configured properly webservers can send out data compressed to browsers that support this. It is done to save bandwidth (bandwidth costs websites money) and speed up webpage loading. I doubt this could work and if it could it would be impractical to implement. The security implecations could be dire. Exactly and you can make more money at the same time. This is why it is so important for people to add links to http://savetheinternet.com and to lobby their Congressman/woman to support network neutrality. Alaskan's particularly need to stand up to Ted Stevens (not that it would do any good).

I playd a mix of "1st edition" rules and second edition rules by nature of the books we had. I must have a dozen books.

Apparently after the spill, Joe Hazelwood became a ships safety instructor. I think the response of one of the environmental groups was "well if it's true that you learn from your mistakes then he should be one hell of a good instructor."

No matter how you slice it, there is a giant grey zone where ecological damage is a matter of opinion. Most rational people would agree that the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska caused ecological damage, but in the case you give as an example it isn't so clear cut.

Actually I really miss my college days of playing AD&D with books, dice and lots of cold pizza. I'd love to claim playing AD&D was my secret hobby. I still have all the books and dice, just hoping for the right opportunity to come along.

No but all traffic could be blocked or slow by default and selectively speeded up. Afterall it is easier to prioritize traffic from a select group. Also, you are confusing selectivly filtering based content based on prioritizing based on source. One is hard, the other is easy.

Remember a lot of the people making the rules don't use the Internet and are hardly able to use a computer. All they know is that they have built up relationships with certain lobbyists who tell them regulations stifle innovation. What some people forget is something that former Republican Governor of Alaska Wally Hickel said: "free enterprise left totally free will destroy itself." He also said: "we've got freedom mixed up with business. Some proponents of free enterprise talk as if they were saying Catholism is the only true religion." – "The Wit and Wisdom of Wally Hickel", ISBN 0-9644316-0-2 Regardless of the business advantages of whether or not there is network neutrality, the most important factor is the impact it will have on the freedom of speech and the ability to share and exchange ideas. Network neutrality is critically important because it ensures that no corporation can control or stifle the free exchange of ideas across the Internet. This is more important than how much money various corporations could make.

Most of the Democrats support network neutrality. Its the Republicans that have been against it for the most part. I am happy to say one of my Senators (Snowe) who is a Republican is a cosponsor of network neutrality, but then again both of Maine's senators tend to be independent thinkers that often vote against the party line.

I think the funniest/scariest ad I ever saw is the AdSense ad I attached here. It was displayed on one of my articles related to the Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster. It just goes to prove you really can get anything on eBay.

I have an environmental chemistry blog (http://EnvironmentalChemistry.blogspot.com) that I've been working on for several months so I'd be more than happy to trade links and blog comments to help "spread the word".

I think the thing is we have to make sure our voices are heard. AT&T, TimeWarner, Comcast, Verison, etc. are trying very hard to make this look like an issue of big companies trying to force network neutrality onto consumers and that it will hurt innovation. At the same time they are trying to claim that Google, Ebay, etc. are trying to force consumers to pay for the Internet. The stupid thing about the forcing the consumer to pay argument is that of course the consumer pays and no matter, which way this whole thing goes the consumer will end up paying. Either they pay their Internet service provider for the bandwidth they want to use or they pay the content provider to access the content. If AT&T tries to extract a fee from some content provider they are going to have to pass those costs on one way or another. In reality what is happening is that the big telecoms are trying to triple dip on revenue. Dip #1) Telecoms charge the consumer for access to the Internet. Dip #2) Telecoms charge content providers for access to the Internet (anyone who has a website knows they have some kind of web hosting fee and for really busy sites this is really expensive). Dip #3) Telecoms want to charge content providers for the privilege of having their content delivered "faster" to the consumer. Does anyone really believe that telecoms are going to reduce the fees they charge consumers for Internet access? No they aren't they will continue to raise their rates to consumers because there is no competition in the broadband market. I don't know about you, but my ISP is constantly raising my fees and in my case my broadband options are TimeWarner RoadRunner or much, much slower Verison DSL. What kind of choice is this? The issue over network neutrality isn't about Google having to pay a fee to make sure that their search results are delivered as fast as possible, as a representative from Amazon.com said last night on the "News Hour with Jim Lehrer" on PBS, Amazon and Google can absorb the cost. Who is going to be hurt without network neutrality are the hundreds of thousands of little sites like SFN that will either see increased operating costs or see their content delivered at a snails pace (if at all) because they aren't paying for special access to a specific telecom's members. Basically why the telecoms are fighting against network neutrality is because they want to consolidate control into their hands so that they can control what users have access to and thus favor their own content thereby maximizing their own revenues. Google is fighting for network neutrality because their business model depends on there being hundreds of thousands of independent websites like mine or like SFN, where consumers have almost limitless choices in destinations and they need a search engine like Google to help them find that obscure site that contains the information that most interests them. The battle over network neutrality is nothing short of a battle over the soul of the Internet and the ability for all views and perspectives to have equal access. This is why the Christian Coalition, MoveOn.org, Gun Owners of America, the ACLU, and hundreds of other groups who are normally on polar opposite sides of issues are speaking with a single unified voice on this issue. This is a battle of giant monopolies trying to control your access to information and if they succeed it will be the free exchange of ideas that will lose.

To the best of my ability I did try to find definitions (which turned out to be too generic) I have tried to understand the definitions, but I am not a mathematical. I didn't claim my example was a proof, I don't remember how to write a proof. All I know is that if I were to add 0.6666 to 0.3333 I would get 0.9999 I also know that no matter how far out I carry a calculation 6^-n plus 3^-n would equal 9^-n. Thus I have no basis to argue against 0.3333.... plus 0.6666.... equaling 0.9999.... I also know that if I take a pie and split it into three even pieces and give all three pieces to the same person they have the whole pie thus I know that 1/3 plus 2/3 equals 3/3. If I try to do a long division on 1/3 I end up getting 0.3333 with a remainder of 1 no matter how far out I carry the division the remainder doesn't change. So I know that 1/3=0.3333.... since apparently the .... is the representation for a continuously repeating number. Using the same method I know that 2/3 equals 0.6666.... 1) I know that 1/3 + 2/3 = 3/3. 2) I know that 1/3 = 0.3333.... 3) I know that 2/3 = 0.6666.... 4) I know that 0.3333.... + 0.6666.... = 0.9999.... So by virtue of this, 3/3 must equal 0.9999.... and I know 3/3 equals 1 so 1 must equal 0.9999.... or put more simply: 1/3=0.3333.... +2/3=0.6666.... ------------------- =3/3=0.9999.....=1 Maybe it isn't some proper proof using fancy signs, and definitions but sometimes it easier and clearer to skip the fancy stuff and keep things as simple as possible for someone like myself who was not a fan of math in college. Hey in the end I was able to come up with a way to understand the claim that 0.9999.... equals 1 and in spite of my inclination to say that people who thought 1=0.999.... were smoking crack, I have to admit they were right.

I bought it at a rock and gem show about a year ago. I had scoped over every table at the show at least twice and couldn't find anything of interest. Then I noticed the pyrite ammonites. The seller was Russian and my wife is Russian so they started talking for awhile. After a little talking he helped me pick out two of the best specimens he had. One is uncut and the other is cut in half to expose the center and polished on the cut surface. Both are nearly perfect. The cut one is amazing. It is so intricate that it is more complex than humanly possible to reproduce, so there is no doubt that it's real. Each air pocket in the shell looks like a mini pyrite geode. The outside of the shell is a slightly shiny brassy color. The cut surface and the inside of the shells are a classic bright and shiny golden pyrite color. I try to make note of all rock shops in areas I travel and make sure to stop. When they are small mom and pop shops you can usually strike up a conversation with the shop owner and sometimes they will bring out or show you that very special specimen. Most of my recent acquisitions have come about as a result with talking with the shop owner who shows me that really unique item. Remember I've been collecting rocks and fossils for over 30 years since I was a little kid, which has given me a long time to accumulate a good collection. In fact some of my first memories revolve around to collecting stones. If you always keep an eye out for that really unique specimen and are selective as to what you buy, you will over the years build a fantastic collection. One thing I have found helpful with my collection is keeping it sealed behind glass to keep the dust out and reduce damage to my specimens. This is what is slowing down the growth of my collection as I don't have room to add another glass case. I design my cases such that they take time to open because the plate glass front is screwed in place so that people don't ask me to open them. I have also found that lighting my cases with the small under counter halogen lights on dimmer switches the best way to bring out all of the color of each specimen.

You would like this; I have some ammonites that are fossilized with pure pyrite instead of silica. They came out of the Volga River in Russia. They are some of the most radical fossils I have ever seen. I also have a fossilized clam shell that has calcite crystals inside of it much like a geode. I've been collecting rocks and fossils for over thirty years and it is getting hard to find really unique specimens to add to my collection. Another problem I have is a lack of display space. My displays are packed and I don't have space to expand them so I'm limited as to how big of specimines I can buy. I don't even display all of my collection anymore.

Who in their right mind would publicly admit to stamp collecting?

Here's a little adendum to my last post. I know I read an editorial coauthored by the Christian Coalition and MoveOn.org within the last week or so, but I can't find it now (you know how fast online news articles disapear). I'll continue looking for it, but in the mean time, here is a link to and ad that MoveOn.org and the Christian Coalition are planning on jointly running in the New York Times: https://civic.moveon.org/donatec4/save_the_internet.html?id=7779-3220920-BRJAvTXFv5_Xt92f4Cye5g&t=4 The Christian Coalition and MoveOn.org actively working hand in hand on one issue -- you know what must be really cold right now.

Uh, I can't tell you....