The Internet Explained

[Lemur]

You've probably already heard about this one, but it's too good not to post. Senator Ted Stevens took some time to explain the internet to you. The least you could do is read what he has to say. Or even listen, if you're prefer a sound file. Brilliant stuff. Can't make jokes about it because it's comedy genius all by itself.

Someone's selling commemorative t-shirts. Good for them.

[edit]

Looks as though the Daily Show has pounced on this one ...

[edit of the edit]

And someone has made a very funny musical remix ...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Senator Ted Stevens

There's one company now you can sign up and you can get a movie delivered to your house daily by delivery service. Okay. And currently it comes to your house, it gets put in the mail box when you get home and you change your order but you pay for that, right.

But this service is now going to go through the internet and what you do is you just go to a place on the internet and you order your movie and guess what you can order ten of them delivered to you and the delivery charge is free.

Ten of them streaming across that internet and what happens to your own personal internet?

I just the other day got, an internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday and I just got it yesterday. Why?

Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the internet commercially.

So you want to talk about the consumer? Let's talk about you and me. We use this internet to communicate and we aren't using it for commercial purposes.

We aren't earning anything by going on that internet. Now I'm not saying you have to or you want to discrimnate against those people.

The regulatory approach is wrong. Your approach is regulatory in the sense that it says "No one can charge anyone for massively invading this world of the internet". No, I'm not finished. I want people to understand my position, I'm not going to take a lot of time.

They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the internet. And again, the internet is not something you just dump something on. It's not a truck.

It's a series of tubes.

And if you don't understand those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and its going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material.

Now we have a separate Department of Defense internet now, did you know that?

Do you know why?

Because they have to have theirs delivered immediately. They can't afford getting delayed by other people.


Now I think these people are arguing whether they should be able to dump all that stuff on the internet ought to consider if they should develop a system themselves.

Maybe there is a place for a commercial net but it's not using what consumers use every day.

It's not using the messaging service that is essential to small businesses, to our operation of families.

The whole concept is that we should not go into this until someone shows that there is something that has been done that really is a viloation of net neutraility that hits you and me.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Dear God. This man legislates?

My favourite:

I just the other day got, an internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday and I just got it yesterday. Why?

I want an internet too...

[Mikeus Caesar]

I've known about this for a while, it's pretty funny - the guy who is meant to be legislating the internet has become a laughing stock, not only on 'the internets' but also in real life.

Silly old coot, they should replace him with someone who knows what they're talking about.

YTMND's on the subject:

http://tubes.ytmnd.com/

My personal favourite: http://tubested.ytmnd.com/

[Blodrast]

Damn, and I wanted to post this a couple of days ago, but I was too lazy, again. Good job, Lemur, and as for the content - oh well, one just can't make up stuff like this

[whyidie]

Holy smokes. Too bad he didn't use "folks" to make himself seem even more down to earth.

Based on that speech, I don't even know what his position is. Is he for or against net neutraility ? Maybe that was his intention.

[Blodrast]

Holy smokes. Too bad he didn't use "folks" to make himself seem even more down to earth.

Based on that speech, I don't even know what his position is. Is he for or against net neutraility ? Maybe that was his intention.

He can't have a position!
Sadly, he is among those who decide this - really really sad, actually - clueless people in charge of things they have no idea about - how the heck does this happen so often ??
Isn't the spirit of capitalism to have the most efficient people in the job ?
(I'm not talking about the US here, but in general, because I've seen/heard other cases where, again, clueless people are in charge of things...)

[Lemur]

Isn't the spirit of capitalism to have the most efficient people in the job ?

Well, it's the spirit of capitalism that in the long run, the market will find efficiencies. Doesn't say nothin' about individual companies and/or organizations. They can be big cans of crazy juice.

Good example: High-tech CEOs.

An analysis of the 100 largest technology companies finds that those with the highest-paid CEOs in 2005 had the worst returns.

In the recent study, DolmatConnell & Partners, an executive compensation consulting firm based in Waltham, Mass., found there was an inverse correlation between tech CEO pay and shareholder returns over a one-year period. Companies analyzed in the study included Cisco Systems, Dell, EMC, Google, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Microsoft and Oracle, as well as telecommunications providers, technology services companies and products distributors.

The one-third highest performing companies paid their chief executives an average of $7.12 million--while the bottom third paid their CEOs $9.29 million. The study compared direct compensation, which includes base salary, bonus and value of stock grants.

[Blodrast]

Interesting, thank you for the article, Lemur. But what's the causal relation here, 'cause I'm at a bit of a loss ? Is it that incompetent CEOs always push for high salaries ? Or good CEOs make their wealth by indirect means, somehow (i.e., not through "direct compensation", in the terms of the article) ?
I'm not denying the facts, I'm just tryin' to understand them.

And while I understand that the Congress is not exactly a capitalist market, I'd still expect some of the "the best man for the job" to apply there as well, at least _to some extent_...

I mean, come on, it's ridiculous to have the guy in charge of deciding (more or less) the fate of the net (or major regulations), when he has not the faintest clue of what it's all about...

[Lemur]

Is it that incompetent CEOs always push for high salaries ?

My best guess would be even simpler -- poorly managed companies are more apt to pay too much for a bad CEO. Companies have cultures, and those cultures can be dysfunctional.

I mean, come on, it's ridiculous to have the guy in charge of deciding (more or less) the fate of the net (or major regulations), when he has not the faintest clue of what it's all about...

I'm in total agreement. I expect that everyone on this board is in total agreement. Without getting too backroomish, I'd say that the problem has to do with how committee positions and power are doled out in Congress. There's nothing capitalist about how our legislature passes around the goodies. And I'm not sure how you could make it more efficient. We're having a hard time just trying to make it less corrupt.

It comes down to a question of whether government can be made better. I don't know if anyone has any bright ideas on that front. Democrats argue for better government, but they're awfully vague on specifics. Republcians argue for less government, but once they're in power they're even bigger expanders of government than the Dems.

I should stop there, for fear of getting this thread tossed into the Backroom.

Yes, it's absurd that this man is intimately involved in regulating the internet. No, I don't have any bright ideas for how to get rid of him and ensure the person who replaces him isn't a bigger idiot.

Last but not least, it's good to laugh at these moronic kleptomaniacs. Derision is useful when your back is up against the wall.

[scotchedpommes]

Wanting to find the humour in it, but I found it almost painful to listen to him say
such things.

[Blodrast]

Ok, thank you for your thoughts, Lemur. I'll also stop here, because I've derailed this thread enough, and I don't want it moved to the Backroom.

[ZombieFriedNuts]

I would laugh but I couldn’t understand a word of it

[AntiochusIII]

A little backroomish in nature, maybe?

I don't understand what's he saying anyway; can anyone please help me translate?

[Lemur]

I thought about posting in the Backroom, but the essence of the issue is technical, so I posted here. It's entirely possible I chsoe the wrong venue, but it hasn't gotten too bad, has it?

You don't need a translation -- I posted a large chunk of the speech in the spoiler tag in the first post. Enjoy!

[Xiahou]

My best guess would be even simpler -- poorly managed companies are more apt to pay too much for a bad CEO. Companies have cultures, and those cultures can be dysfunctional.

Or maybe a company that's doing poorly is willing to pay more for hotshot management in the hopes that they can turn the company around.

Of course a study that only covers one year is pretty worthless when it comes to drawing hard conclusions isnt it?

*why is this thread here?

[Blodrast]

It's here 'cause, just like Lemur said, it started out as a technical thingie.
Then I derailed it with my questions which were less technical in nature.

[AntiochusIII]

You don't need a translation -- I posted a large chunk of the speech in the spoiler tag in the first post. Enjoy!

Oh, I read that already.

And I really, really, completely need a translation for that. It seems to me to be some sort of rambling about random stuff that has nothing to do with the internet, a collection of non sequiturs, if you like. So much so that I'm totally confused: what's he saying?

[BDC]

I hope every American is sniffling with patriotic ooze and has the national anthem on in the background. Moving stuff.

[whyidie]

I hope every American is sniffling with patriotic ooze and has the national anthem on in the background. Moving stuff.

USA! USA! USA!