[Cialug] How the Internet works

Mon Jul 3 17:17:09 CDT 2006

Maybe it was a considered response on ur part and not a 'knee-jerk reation'. But on the other hand, negative reactions that lead to stereotyping, namecalling or just general derision tends to make matters worse, not better. It doesn't make the 'ignorant person' seek us for better information.

No offense.

Stuart
Stuart Thiessen
Pass It On Services

Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device    

-----Original Message-----
From: "Dave J. Hala Jr." <dave at 58ghz.net>
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 17:04:03 
To:Central Iowa Linux Users Group <cialug at cialug.org>
Subject: Re: [Cialug] How the Internet works

I don't agree at all... and I didn't have a knee jerk reaction. He (the
senator) didn't understand what he was voting on -and that's scary. He
didn't take the time to understand the issue. 

On Mon, 2006-07-03 at 16:56, Claus wrote:
> It's not about whether or not the amendment is reasonable.  Its about 
> the attitude of the posts.  Knee jerk reactions like that only cause 
> more harm.  Here is a senator that needs the expertise from people like 
> you, yet you call him an idiot.  This doesn't foster any communications, 
> instead positions the senator more solid with the telecom lobbyists.
> 
> The mistakes he made during the speech are quite common throughout the 
> normal population.  There is always the notion that someone has to have 
> invented the Internet, that one is using the Internet, that one can buy 
> it and that it's free.  The Internet is a bunch of different things to 
> different people and there isn't one exact definition, not even within 
> the IT world.  But it really doesn't matter.  We all know that the 
> Internet he got was an email message.  What matters is that he like 
> millions of other people want to get their email to arrive reliably and 
> fast.  While the opponents promise that they will, we tell him he's an 
> idiot.  Good job!
> 
>    Claus
> 
> On 7/3/2006 1:20 PM, Dave Weis wrote:
> > 
> > On Mon, 3 Jul 2006, Claus wrote:
> >> First of all you have to remember that Senators have to deal with all 
> >> kinds of issues, not just IT.  So it's very difficult for them to be 
> >> an expert on everything.  If you listen to the audio you'd know that 
> >> right away.
> > 
> > If it's part of your job to make decisions that affect 250+ million 
> > people directly, plus a few billion more around the world indirectly, 
> > you should understand the basic principles of how it works. He's also 
> > not a first year peon, he chairs the Committee on Commerce, Science and 
> > Transportation. That sounds like someone that should have an inklink of 
> > how things work.
> > 
> >> While he did get some things incorrect, he also had several things 
> >> correct. While he wasn't the smoothest speaker, he voiced a valid 
> >> concern.  It is hard for us to overhear the little mistakes like 
> >> "sending the Internet" and such and focus on the real concern.
> >>
> >> All what I hear is bashing by us but nobody stepped up and tried to 
> >> clarify things and argue for or against it with solid and easy to 
> >> understand reasons. In a democracy it is our duty as citizens to stay 
> >> informed in politics and elect and vote intelligently when called 
> >> upon.  As technological experts it's our duty to advice our political 
> >> representatives.  For this list it would be fully appropriate, with 
> >> the proper subject line, to discuss the amendment intension while 
> >> bashing people shouldn't be.
> > 
> > The amendment was completely reasonable and had a good reason to be 
> > there, see next paragraph.
> > 
> >> The part that makes me sick are the people that make just make fun of 
> >> them but don't contribute anything useful.  Such behavior is extremely 
> >> low and just plain destructive.  Who wants to serve in a public office 
> >> or voice their opinions just so others make fun of you?
> > 
> > There are plenty of astroturf groups making noise about the issue. I saw 
> > in person a petition paid for by the telephone companies getting people 
> > excited about protecting the internet from regulation. The regulations 
> > being that carriers can not intentionally degrade traffic over their 
> > network that goes to a competitor. It didn't prevent carriers from 
> > giving themselves priority, just preventing them from affecting 
> > competitors. The request for the law has come up because some carriers 
> > are intentionally harming traffic like Vonage when it eats into their 
> > wireline revenue.
> > 
> > dave
> > 
> >> On 7/3/2006 7:11 AM, Dave J. Hala Jr. wrote:
> >>> Sometimes you want to laugh when you realize that these politicians just
> >>> don't get it. Then you realize that they are our leaders, and it just
> >>> makes you sick.
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, 2006-07-03 at 06:50, Dave Weis wrote:
> >>>> I guess I was wrong on how I thought things worked:
> >>>> http://blog.wired.com/27BStroke6/?entry_id=1512499
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Cialug mailing list
> >> Cialug at cialug.org
> >> http://cialug.org/mailman/listinfo/cialug
> >>
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Cialug mailing list
> Cialug at cialug.org
> http://cialug.org/mailman/listinfo/cialug
-- 

Open Source Information Systems, Inc. (OSIS)
Dave J. Hala Jr., President <dave at osis.us>
641.485.1606

_______________________________________________
Cialug mailing list
Cialug at cialug.org
http://cialug.org/mailman/listinfo/cialug