Archive for the ‘Computing/Telecom’ Category

Luddhunter Refutes Loser-licking, State-sucking Broadband Monopoly Argument

August 27, 2008

This is a reprint of my comment 105 on NYTimes computing future article refuting Josh Hill’s comment 95.


Josh Hill,

I disagree with your monopoly argument.

1. A few years ago, cable modems and DSL service were the only decent speed connections, and they were competitive on price.  Why aren’t cable and DSL still competitive?  Last time I checked, they were.

2. In all cities with cell service, decent-speed web access is available thru wireless cards that receive a cell signal. I have this service, and am happy with it because I can receive pretty much anywhere.

3. Direct-TV offers web access at good speeds.

4. Even power companies are offering data services thru the electical outlets in some cities.

Therefore, metered service is a competitive decision that has nothing to do with Net Neutrality as long as the metering is the same for all types of data transfer.  Any proposal to fix the price of unlimited web service is a dipshit egalitarian idea that has been shown, every time it is tried, to create shortages (in this case, network slowdowns). Egalitarians who try to equalize outcomes like net access are whiny altruists, loser-lickers who would rather punish the successful than reward them…they don’t recognize that the rising tide created by the successful having the best tools lifts all boats, and ultimately makes all technologies more accessible to the “downtrodden”.  Conversely, loser-licker regulations like NN price fixing drag everybody down into the pigdung…”if not all can win, then I’ll make sure nobody wins!” May the altruists’ genitals rot in the pigdung they live in, so as not to breed more loser-lickers.

 And Buildout requirements are totally socialistic in the context of true competition, which I believe we have.  I suspect anyone who is arguing there is a web access monopoly in any mid-size city or larger is either deluded, or a propagandistic state-sucker with a sticky nude centerfold of Karl Marx under his or her pillow.  May the state-suckers’ nuts be punched off by the Invisible Hand of capitalism, and their bloodlines die as their retarded collectivist whining is shunned by potential mates, who innately want to breed with someone who can stand on his/her own legs on the field of competition.

For more tuff love of my anti-competitive technophobic friends, the Ludds, see my blog at, and my podcasts on


What’s scarier – supersmart computers or the super-think-they’re-smart Ludds who want to stifle computing advances?

August 26, 2008

Here’s a post I made against Tim Niles’ comment about the downside of technology, in a NY Times article on the future of computing.


Tim Niles,
Whenever I read “with ability comes responsibility”,  I have learned not to accept it at face value.  The reason is that the people who repeat it tend to not trust that people will exercise this responsibility, and that existing laws do not protect lesser-able citizens from overly-abled technologists, and these people support some kind of legislation that limits the technologist from using the new technology freely EVEN THOUGH he has not violated anyone’s health or property rights.

We see this is two areas today regarding computing:

1) Buildout.  This is government witholding broadband construction on the principle that, “if everyone can’t have it, no one should have it.”  This of course, is egalitarian loser-licking, luddislators punishing the successful to make their low-revenue area constituents feel better about being low-revenue area residents.  Technology is sacrificed for political appeasement of economic failure in less productive communities (in aggregate).

2) Net Neutrality (NN).  The basic libertarian principle of NN is good (I should get to download whatever I want without gatekeeping), but the network management freedom is being abridged arbitrarily by legislation that threatens to prevent providers from charging more money for excessive download.  No real libertarian would oppose managing network traffic by price or aggregate traffic limitation, just as power companies do.  There’s a good article about these net price controls (in NN drag) on  (explicit link is

Bottom line: In the name of “fairness”, Ludds stop technology from being offered and they try and fix the price, both of which hurt growth and, ultimately human survival. 

I say to the potential mates of Ludds:  do not mate with them or at least use birth control.  Their ideas are detrimental to long term survival of our species, and must not be passed down to Ludd offspring.  Ludds are parasites macro-economically, and they probably will be with you, too…does he/she borrow money unashamedly?  It could be a sign.  Find a Nerd.  We will make the species prosperous.  And we’re sexy, in an independence lusting, tech-perv, competitoid maniac sort of way.