To the two readers of this blog.
Me…and…
my alter ego.
Thanks and have a good day.
November 23, 2017
Net Neutrality – Mostly Misunderstood by Nearly Everyone
by way of Arstechnica…
Net Neutrality sounds like something we should all get behind. Equal internet access for all. I get the same speeds as a big corporation does and all that. The internet should be free…what…wait?
The internet is not free. The internet will never be free because someone will always have to pay for it. As long as you have to pay for something, it ain’t free.
Keeping the government out of the internet and inviting Net Neutrality do not go together for obvious reasons. Pro Net Neutrality folks hold up signs that say “FCC Have a Heart. Keep the Internet Free.” The FCC has nothing to do with that. At the end of the day, you are still going to pay for it. We are not talking about freedom. We are talking about government regulation of something that should be free of government interference.
You can’t be pro Net Neutrality and pro free internet. They don’t go together.
The folks against Net Neutrality aren’t pro big business. They are pro “government should not regulate the internet” or “keep the internet free” as some would call it.
I think most supporters don’t understand what Net Neutrality is.
That is also very sad.
Update (11/29/17): Looks like most of the comments favoring Net Neutrality on the FCC website are false.
Update (12/02/17): …and even more panic attacks from Wired. They obviously have no idea what the true issues really are. Just a bunch of writing designed to scare people into thinking that big government is always the answer. Well geniuses, it is NEVER the answer. Hence, the 2nd amendment. To allow us to keep and bear arms against each other? No. To keep and bear arms so that the government isn’t the only one who has them. Net Neutrality opens the door for the government and quite frankly, that door needs to stay closed. History has taught pro net neutrality folks nothing.
Light Pollution is Now a Thing
From space.com…
“[Light pollution] threatens biodiversity through changed night habits, such as reproduction or migration patterns, of many different species: insects, amphibians, fish, birds, bats and other animals,” Hölker said. “And it can even disrupt plants by causing … late leaf loss and extended growing periods, which could of course impact the composition of the floral community.”
High levels of artificial light may also impact health in humans by reducing the body’s production of melatonin, a hormone that can affect things like the body’s immune system, mental health and fertility. It also reduces people’s ability to see stars and celestial objects, which astronomers and social scientists argue has a negative impact on culture and science. It’s estimated that about one-third of the world’s population cannot see the band of the Milky Way galaxy at night, due to light pollution. That includes 80 percent of people living in North America.
The researchers said they hope their research can be used in efforts to initiate policy changes that combat light pollution. Kyba is involved with the International Dark-Sky Association, which is taking steps to fight this problem.
The paper appears today (Nov. 22) in the journal Science Advances.
Please note the uses of the words “can” and “could.”
I would agree with the argument that nocturnal creatures would have a problem with the absence of a night cycle. However, with that being said I also believe that those creatives would evolve just as we’ve always done. The environment we live in is ever changing. Evolution is a constant process.
The article in space.com paints a picture that is far from reality. We are in no danger of having a Coruscant style of planet nor are we close.
Sometimes, I really think scientists as a whole are just trying to justify their own existence instead of helping mankind.
Someone probably paid real money for this research and that is just sad.
