DISQUS

Is immunity constitutional? Probably. But is it good public policy? Not a chance. Retroactively extending immunity from liability creates unpredictability and decreases the legitimacy of the court system as a vehicle for resolving civil disputes. "We were just following orders" doesn't work for war criminals and it shouldn't work for companies with giant legal teams that could have performed due diligence and figured out that wiretapping absent a valid certification from the AG is against the law.

F Rosenberg, you aren't entirely correct in your assessment of bottled water. A high percentage of purified bottled water is originally sourced from municipal treatment plants, but that hardly means bottled water is merely repackaged tap water. Typically, bottlers treat municipal water via reverse osmosis, providing a much purer water. Tap water does have all harmful chemicals removed, but many residual components such as nitrates and chlorine remain in tap water in perceptible, albeit unsafe, portions. With purified bottled water like Dasani, all unwanted substances are eliminated via treatment.

Advertising is a key source of funding for lots of excellent original websites like ArsTechnica. Better click-through rates helps spur new sources of news and commentary online.

Except there's no Constitutional right to get your clothes dry cleaned. And a private company--not the government--was the one doing the refusing. Key distinction there.

dirrk a dur!

Ben, the Internet would look a whole lot different in a world where the end user paid for bandwidth on a unit basis like power or water. On one hand, people would think twice before watching that YouTube video or browsing the web, meaning less worthless traffic would be generated.

But isn’t the essence of the Web that people can browse to their heart's content, constrained only by their own time. Part of the reason advertisers spend so much money on web ads is because there are so many eyeballs out there online. Make it so people must pay each time they click a link, and the number of eyeballs floating around shrinks dramatically, especially for "fun" websites.

It is extremely tough to say that one type of "information" is a better use of the Internet than streaming color video. Most times, that might be the case, but who knows when watching a video might matter a lot? Making blanket judgments about traffic based on broad characteristics is prone to wild inaccuracies. Different people value bits differently, and what matters most to me might not matter to you at all. That's why a pricing mechanism for bandwidth might be better than your ISP simply deciding what kind of traffic is important.

I'm no fan of traffic congestion, so pricing the roads seems like a good way to discourage people from driving unless they value it. Yet, as you point out, London's congestion fees haven't had much impact.

Is there any feasible and efficient method of reducing traffic congestion, and if so, is it desirable?

Shawn, you raise several legitimate concerns about the potential for network discrimination, and I personally share many of your values when it comes to choosing my ISP.

But when it comes to net neutrality, would an ISP really start to engage in the sort of activities you describe? Not likely.

Sure, Comcast limited Bittorrent seeding during peak hours, but that really only affected a tiny minority of users, and it was only implemented because seeding wreaks havoc on DOCSIS 1.1 nodes. And widespread backlash and harsh blogosphere criticism has prompted Comcast to change its policies.

Net neutrality supporters make highly questionable assumptions about ISP market leverage. Could an ISP really threaten to shut down (or at least degrade) YouTube? Not a chance. Google would say "screw you" and the ISP would be left either alienating its user base or making do without extra YouTube money.

What about stifling smaller video websites (or competing voice services) you say? I still have serious doubts about whether consumers would stomach such a move, especially considering the vigilance of netizens.

Obviously the skewed broadband marketplace (which I've often discussed) complicates this whole debate. When you can't ditch your provider for another, that certainly gives the ISP quite a bit of leeway. But ISP choice is improving. Most people can get DSL, cable (sometimes 2 cable co's even), satellite, wi-fi, 3G, Wi-Max, and in a couple years even 4G (LTE)

Shawn, I agree with you that Comcast's decision to limit seeding during peak usage times makes a lot of sense, and I wasn't saying that ISPs should have to let torrent users seed to their heart's content during peak hours. It's just that I'd personally prefer an ISP that didn't pass judgment on whether my application is more "valuable" than yours. You may think YouTube viewers deserve to push traffic through the pipes during peak hours more than torrent seeders, but then again I'm not so sure that watching sneezing pandas is that much more important than disseminating the latest release of open source software.

Again, I'm fine with what Comcast has been doing and they have every right to manage their network as they see fit without regulation. But I don't see why there couldn't also be room for ISPs that address network congestion in a protocol-agnostic manner, even if such an approach might end up costing more to the customer.

brierrabbit, I don't see credit cards as dumb. Some people who use cards irresponsibly rack up credit card debt, but that's not the bank or the card issuers fault.

Credit cards may have high rates, but they're an easy way to borrow a few thousand for a limited time without applying for a loan. Lots of upstart entrepreneurs and even independent movie producers have relied on credit cards for financing.

Keep in mind you don't have to pay interest on credit cards. Spend what you can afford, and just pay off the entire balance every month (as many people do) so you won't accumulate debt.

This may be an example of the environmental Kuznets curve.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuznets_curve
Up to a point, China's runaway growth causes higher pollution, but eventually environmental harm starts to stabilize and then decline. This was seen during the 20th century in developed countries like the US.

Plastic bags are trivial on the grand scale of pollution, though, and China's per-capita level of pollution will probably keep increasing overall as economic development spreads westward into poorer areas of the county.

Thanks for your comment, Pedantic.

Regarding my use of the word "myriad" as a noun, according to http://www.bartleby.com/64/C003/0214.html the word myriad can be appropriately used as either an adjective or a noun. I prefer the noun form but my colleague Cord Blomquist frequently uses the word in its adjective form.

Also, from Wikipedia "Merriam-Webster notes, "Recent criticism of the use of myriad as a noun, both in the plural form myriads and in the phrase a myriad of, seems to reflect a mistaken belief that the word was originally and is still properly only an adjective.... however, the noun is in fact the older form, dating to the 16th century. The noun myriad has appeared in the works of such writers as Milton (plural myriads) and Thoreau (a myriad of), and it continues to occur frequently in reputable English. There is no reason to avoid it.""