I sometimes wonder if our life is kind of like a cosmic amusement park ride.

I'm rougy this time around, and I've done x, y, and z.

But maybe the rougy after me will go on to be president.

Maybe the rougy before me was a murderer.

What if we deposit our "selves" into bodies the way that people sit down in a roller coaster car, only this particular roller coaster has billions of variables and no two rides are exactly the same?

>> ^MaxWilder:
Actually, there is a part of me that says: If they own the lines, why shouldn't they control what goes over it however they want?
Of course I know all the reasons for net neutrality, such as encouraging innovation and preventing large businesses from stifling small startups. But if I owned parcel shipping service, I wouldn't want the government to tell me I couldn't charge extra for priority service. You could apply the same metaphor to any number of other services. Some amusement parks allow people to buy expensive VIP tickets that cut to the head of lines. Direct flights might cost more than a flight with a bunch of connections, and the concord was really pricey. All those examples make sense.
Why does the same thing not apply to internet service providers, except for the fact that we are accustomed to net neutrality and will be pissed if things change? I'm actually a little torn on this issue.


That's because you seem to be confused about the issue.

To take your parcel service analogy and put it into the correct context, think of it not as charging an individual more for different teirs of shipping priority, but more like charging amazon.com one rate with next day delivery, and newegg.com the same rate and shipping everything ground.

When I see things like Net Neutrality being fought so hard against by the cable and telephone companies, I really start to think that if any industry needs to be taken over by the government it's them. Some countries have gone so far as to make unrestricted internet access a right of their citizenry, pushing prices down and bandwidth up. But I forget we can't do that in the US, that'd cut into the massive corporate profits and that's just plain UNAMERICAN!

>> ^MaxWilder:
Actually, there is a part of me that says: If they own the lines, why shouldn't they control what goes over it however they want?
Of course I know all the reasons for net neutrality, such as encouraging innovation and preventing large businesses from stifling small startups. But if I owned parcel shipping service, I wouldn't want the government to tell me I couldn't charge extra for priority service. You could apply the same metaphor to any number of other services. Some amusement parks allow people to buy expensive VIP tickets that cut to the head of lines. Direct flights might cost more than a flight with a bunch of connections, and the concord was really pricey. All those examples make sense.
Why does the same thing not apply to internet service providers, except for the fact that we are accustomed to net neutrality and will be pissed if things change? I'm actually a little torn on this issue.


In part, it's because they want things both ways. They want to keep the special protections they get for being common carriers (i.e. they're not responsible for the content in the pipes), but they also want to be able to monitor that content and charge differently for different sources/uses. Common carriers are called that precisely because they don't differentiate among the content they carry...if they do differentiate, then by definition, they're no longer common carriers. At that point, they become liable for all the child porn and terrorist speech they transmit.

On a different tack, I shudder to think of the added complexity when they try to handle billing and routing based on both endpoints of every connection. Reliability of the internet would hit an all-time low.

Actually, there is a part of me that says: If they own the lines, why shouldn't they control what goes over it however they want?

Of course I know all the reasons for net neutrality, such as encouraging innovation and preventing large businesses from stifling small startups. But if I owned parcel shipping service, I wouldn't want the government to tell me I couldn't charge extra for priority service. You could apply the same metaphor to any number of other services. Some amusement parks allow people to buy expensive VIP tickets that cut to the head of lines. Direct flights might cost more than a flight with a bunch of connections, and the concord was really pricey. All those examples make sense.

Why does the same thing not apply to internet service providers, except for the fact that we are accustomed to net neutrality and will be pissed if things change? I'm actually a little torn on this issue.

when i open my off-shore amusement park for rich evil people, we'll sell these for food

>> ^ponceleon:
>> ^Doc_M:
Perfect example. Go to an amusement park in Canada, then one in America. Yeesh, it's like leaving Milan for Jersey.

okay, I'm not being a smart-ass here, but I have no idea what that means... Which country are you saying has better amusement parks?


Hehe. Amusement parks just exemplify it perfectly. People in Canada dress stylishly even in amusement parks, or so I've observed. It's a "I'm going to be in public" attitude difference.

Lol yeah! He just said it like it was obvious or something and I just have no idea what the implication is... it's like he said, "we'll look at an American tree and then look at a Canadian tree and you'll see who's got the biggest supermarkets!"

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Haha. I was curious about that, too, but somehow I was afraid if I said something people would think I was being a prick.

In reply to this comment by ponceleon:
>> ^Doc_M:
Perfect example. Go to an amusement park in Canada, then one in America. Yeesh, it's like leaving Milan for Jersey.


okay, I'm not being a smart-ass here, but I have no idea what that means... Which country are you saying has better amusement parks?

Haha. I was curious about that, too, but somehow I was afraid if I said something people would think I was being a prick.

In reply to this comment by ponceleon:
>> ^Doc_M:
Perfect example. Go to an amusement park in Canada, then one in America. Yeesh, it's like leaving Milan for Jersey.


okay, I'm not being a smart-ass here, but I have no idea what that means... Which country are you saying has better amusement parks?

>> ^Doc_M:
Perfect example. Go to an amusement park in Canada, then one in America. Yeesh, it's like leaving Milan for Jersey.


okay, I'm not being a smart-ass here, but I have no idea what that means... Which country are you saying has better amusement parks?

Perfect example. Go to an amusement park in Canada, then one in America. Yeesh, it's like leaving Milan for Jersey.

i would say * eia ?

that single rope doesn't exactly look like something you would get away with in any amusement park i know of..

^I believe 'Black Magic Rollercoaster' to be a production credit, and not a functioning amusement park attraction, budzy.

>> ^quantumushroom:
He's like a retarded cousin of Johnny-5.



You have no idea how hard that made me laugh!

So, how are they doing this? Is this remote-controlled or is Wall-E just programmed to respond to certain keywords he hears, like "Eve?"

>> ^elysse:
hershey park indeed.

I'm amazed that there is actually an amusement park by a chocolate manufacturer... amazing ... but yes, even the shape of the Hershey's kiss is right for... well.. .you know

a Chinese amusement park....what a concept-No thanks, think I'd rather drive a Buick with the brake lines cut and accelerator stuck.