Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3,251 Excellent


About pogi

  • Rank
    Lost my face in the fuzz

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

1,319 profile views
  1. Interesting picture

    That seems rather impulsive. Are you Jewish or Hindu, or are you just attracted to the superficial image of it? No regerts!
  2. Spiritual hubris

    What you are suggesting is blind faith/obedience. That is not what we teach in Mormonism. Every spiritual leaders should counsel a person to seek spiritual confirmation for themselves.
  3. The End of Net Neutrality

    No, relying on the government is madness. The market always does a better job than the government at providing services. Public utilities don't compete, they don't innovate, they don't serve consumers (they serve regulators). https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2016/07/07/why-treating-the-internet-as-a-public-utility-is-bad-for-consumers/?utm_term=.c9a3f73bb341 https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/02/04/regulate-internet-providers/dont-make-the-internet-a-public-utility Very, very few areas have only one option for high end internet. In June 2014, over 70% of American households have a choice among 3 or more wired internet providers. I am sure that number is much higher now. If you want more options in those areas, the last thing you want to do is to make the internet a utility. That will only hamper investment and growth into more rural areas. See: http://thehill.com/policy/technology/331970-rural-internet-providers-applaud-fcc-move-to-kill-net-neutrality-rules There is also this: Net neutrality (internet as a utility) has only been around since 2015. There is no evidence to suggest that there was anything wrong with the system before that. Look at the growth! That kind of growth would never have happened with net neutrality. Rural areas are the ones who will be hurt the worst, in the long run, by net neutrality. Get government out of the way for innovation, growth, and respectable customer service.
  4. The End of Net Neutrality

    I am not entirely sold on the idea that net neutrality is a good thing. I am more of a libertarian and believe that the free market is the solution, not more government oversight. ISPs are private companies and should be able to set the rules regarding how their services are used. If you don't like one ISP, go to another one that offers services that offer "net neutrality". Competition should force ISPs to improve. And, no, I don't believe that ISPs should be granted exclusive territories by the government. Arguments against net neutrality: Opponents of net neutrality regulations include Internet service providers (ISPs), broadband and telecommunications companies, computer hardware manufacturers, economists and notable technologists. Many of the major hardware and telecommunications companies specifically oppose the reclassification of broadband as a common carrier under Title II. Corporate opponents of this measure include Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, IBM, Intel, Cisco, Nokia, Qualcomm, Broadcom, Juniper, D-Link, Wintel, Alcatel-Lucent, Corning, Panasonic, Ericsson, and others.[89][168][169] Nobel Memorial Prize-winning economist Gary Becker's paper titled, "Net Neutrality and Consumer Welfare", published by the Journal of Competition Law & Economics, argues that claims by net neutrality proponents "do not provide a compelling rationale for regulation" because there is "significant and growing competition" among broadband access providers.[170][171] Google Chairman Eric Schmidt states that, while Google views that similar data types should not be discriminated against, it is okay to discriminate across different data types—a position that both Google and Verizon generally agree on, according to Schmidt.[172][173] According to the Journal, when President Barack Obama announced his support for strong net neutrality rules late in 2014, Schmidt told a top White House official the president was making a mistake. Google has since supports net neutrality.[173] Individuals who oppose net neutrality include TCP/IP inventor Bob Kahn,[174][175], Marc Andreessen,[176] Scott McNealy,[177] Peter Thiel,[170] David Farber,[178] Nicholas Negroponte,[179] Rajeev Suri,[180] Jeff Pulver,[181] John Perry Barlow,[182] Mark Cuban[183] and FCC Chairman Ajit Pai. Several civil rights groups, such as the National Urban League, Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/PUSH, and League of United Latin American Citizens, also oppose Title II net neutrality regulations,[184] who said that the call to regulate broadband Internet service as a utility would harm minority communities by stifling investment in underserved areas.[185][186] A number of other opponents created Hands Off The Internet,[187] a website created in 2006 to promote arguments against Internet regulation. Principal financial support for the website came from AT&T, and members included BellSouth, Alcatel, Cingular, and Citizens Against Government Waste.[188][189][190][191][192] Robert Pepper, a senior managing director, global advanced technology policy, at Cisco Systems, and former FCC chief of policy development, says: "The supporters of net neutrality regulation believe that more rules are necessary. In their view, without greater regulation, service providers might parcel out bandwidth or services, creating a bifurcated world in which the wealthy enjoy first-class Internet access, while everyone else is left with slow connections and degraded content. That scenario, however, is a false paradigm. Such an all-or-nothing world doesn't exist today, nor will it exist in the future. Without additional regulation, service providers are likely to continue doing what they are doing. They will continue to offer a variety of broadband service plans at a variety of price points to suit every type of consumer".[193] Computer scientist Bob Kahn[194] has said net neutrality is a slogan that would freeze innovation in the core of the Internet.[175] Farber has written and spoken strongly in favor of continued research and development on core Internet protocols. He joined academic colleagues Michael Katz, Christopher Yoo, and Gerald Faulhaber in an op-ed for the Washington Post strongly critical of network neutrality, essentially stating that while the Internet is in need of remodeling, congressional action aimed at protecting the best parts of the current Internet could interfere with efforts to build a replacement.[195] Reduction in investment According to a letter to key Congressional and FCC leaders sent by 60 major ISP technology suppliers including IBM, Intel, Qualcomm, and Cisco, Title II regulation of the Internet "means that instead of billions of broadband investment driving other sectors of the economy forward, any reduction in this spending will stifle growth across the entire economy. This is not idle speculation or fear mongering...Title II is going to lead to a slowdown, if not a hold, in broadband build out, because if you don’t know that you can recover on your investment, you won’t make it."[89][196][197][198] According to the Wall Street Journal, in one of Google’s few lobbying sessions with FCC officials, the company urged the agency to craft rules that encourage investment in broadband Internet networks—a position that mirrors the argument made by opponents of strong net neutrality rules, such as AT&T and Comcast.[173] Opponents of net neutrality argue that prioritization of bandwidth is necessary for future innovation on the Internet.[169] Telecommunications providers such as telephone and cable companies, and some technology companies that supply networking gear, argue telecom providers should have the ability to provide preferential treatment in the form of tiered services, for example by giving online companies willing to pay the ability to transfer their data packets faster than other Internet traffic.[199] The added income from such services could be used to pay for the building of increased broadband access to more consumers.[121] Opponents say that net neutrality would make it more difficult for Internet service providers (ISPs) and other network operators to recoup their investments in broadband networks.[200] John Thorne, senior vice president and deputy general counsel of Verizon, a broadband and telecommunications company, has argued that they will have no incentive to make large investments to develop advanced fibre-optic networks if they are prohibited from charging higher preferred access fees to companies that wish to take advantage of the expanded capabilities of such networks. Thorne and other ISPs have accused Google and Skype of freeloading or free riding for using a network of lines and cables the phone company spent billions of dollars to build.[169][201][202] Marc Andreessen states that "a pure net neutrality view is difficult to sustain if you also want to have continued investment in broadband networks. If you’re a large telco right now, you spend on the order of $20 billion a year on capex [capital expenditure]. You need to know how you’re going to get a return on that investment. If you have these pure net neutrality rules where you can never charge a company like Netflix anything, you’re not ever going to get a return on continued network investment — which means you’ll stop investing in the network. And I would not want to be sitting here 10 or 20 years from now with the same broadband speeds we’re getting today."[203] Proponents of net neutrality regulations say network operators have continued to under-invest in infrastructure.[204] However, according to Copenhagen Economics, U.S. investment in telecom infrastructure is 50 percent higher than in the European Union. As a share of GDP, the United States' broadband investment rate per GDP trails only the UK and South Korea slightly, but exceeds Japan, Canada, Italy, Germany, and France sizably.[205] On broadband speed, Akamai reported that the US trails only South Korea and Japan among its major trading partners, and trails only Japan in the G-7 in both average peak connection speed and percentage of the population connection at 10 Mbit/s or higher, but are substantially ahead of most of its other major trading partners.[205] The White House reported in June 2013 that U.S. connection speeds are "the fastest compared to other countries with either a similar population or land mass".[206] Akamai's report on "The State of the Internet" in the 2nd quarter of 2014 says "a total of 39 states saw 4K readiness rate more than double over the past year". In other words, as ZDNet reports, those states saw a "major" increase in the availability of the 15Mbit/s speed needed for 4K video.[207] According to the Progressive Policy Institute and ITU data, the United States has the most affordable entry-level prices for fixed broadband in the OECD.[205][208] In Indonesia, there is a very high number of Internet connections that are subjected to exclusive deals between the ISP and the building owner, and changing this dynamic could unlock much more consumer choice and higher speeds.[150] FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai and Federal Election Commission's Lee Goldman wrote in a Politico piece in February 2015, "Compare Europe, which has long had utility-style regulations, with the United States, which has embraced a light-touch regulatory model. Broadband speeds in the United States, both wired and wireless, are significantly faster than those in Europe. Broadband investment in the United States is several multiples that of Europe. And broadband's reach is much wider in the United States, despite its much lower population density."[209] Significant and growing competition, investment A 2010 paper on net neutrality by Nobel Prize economist Gary Becker and his colleagues stated that "there is significant and growing competition among broadband access providers and that few significant competitive problems have been observed to date, suggesting that there is no compelling competitive rationale for such regulation".[171] Becker and fellow economists Dennis Carlton and Hal Sidler found that "Between mid-2002 and mid-2008, the number of high-speed broadband access lines in the United States grew from 16 million to nearly 133 million, and the number of residential broadband lines grew from 14 million to nearly 80 million. Internet traffic roughly tripled between 2007 and 2009. At the same time, prices for broadband Internet access services have fallen sharply."[171] The PPI reports that the profit margins of U.S. broadband providers are generally one-sixth to one-eighth of companies that use broadband (such as Apple or Google), contradicting the idea of monopolistic price-gouging by providers.[205] When FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler redefined broadband from 4 Mbit/s to 25 Mbit/s (3.125 MB/s) or greater in January 2015, FCC commissioners Ajit Pai and Mike O'Reilly believed the redefinition was to set up the agency's intent to settle the net neutrality fight with new regulations. The commissioners argued that the stricter speed guidelines painted the broadband industry as less competitive, justifying the FCC's moves with Title II net neutrality regulations.[210] A report by the Progressive Policy Institute in June 2014 argues that nearly every American can choose from at least 5-6 broadband Internet service providers, despite claims that there are only a "small number" of broadband providers.[205] Citing research from the FCC, the Institute wrote that 90 percent of American households have access to at least one wired and one wireless broadband provider at speeds of at least 4 Mbit/s (500 kbyte/s) downstream and 1 Mbit/s (125 kbyte/s) upstream and that nearly 88 percent of Americans can choose from at least two wired providers of broadband disregarding speed (typically choosing between a cable and telco offering). Further, three of the four national wireless companies report that they offer 4G LTE to 250–300 million Americans, with the fourth (T-Mobile) sitting at 209 million and counting.[205] Similarly, the FCC reported in June 2008 that 99.8% of ZIP codes in the United States had two or more providers of high speed Internet lines available, and 94.6% of ZIP codes had four or more providers, as reported by University of Chicago economists Gary Becker, Dennis Carlton, and Hal Sider in a 2010 paper.[171] Deterring competition FCC commissioner Ajit Pai states that the FCC completely brushes away the concerns of smaller competitors who are going to be subject to various taxes, such as state property taxes and general receipts taxes.[211] As a result, according to Pai, that does nothing to create more competition within the market.[211] According to Pai, the FCC's ruling to impose Title II regulations is opposed by the country's smallest private competitors and many municipal broadband providers.[212] In his dissent, Pai noted that 142 wireless ISPs (WISPs) said that FCC’s new "regulatory intrusion into our businesses ... would likely force us to raise prices, delay deployment expansion, or both". He also noted that 24 of the country's smallest ISPs, each with fewer than 1,000 residential broadband customers, wrote to the FCC stating that Title II "will badly strain our limited resources" because they "have no in-house attorneys and no budget line items for outside counsel". Further, another 43 municipal broadband providers told the FCC that Title II "will trigger consequences beyond the Commission's control and risk serious harm to our ability to fund and deploy broadband without bringing any concrete benefit for consumers or edge providers that the market is not already proving today without the aid of any additional regulation".[168] According to a Wired magazine article by TechFreedom's Berin Szoka, Matthew Starr, and Jon Henke, local governments and public utilities impose the most significant barriers to entry for more cable broadband competition: "While popular arguments focus on supposed 'monopolists' such as big cable companies, it's government that's really to blame." The authors state that local governments and their public utilities charge ISPs far more than they actually cost and have the final say on whether an ISP can build a network. The public officials determine what requirements an ISP must meet to get approval for access to publicly owned "rights of way" (which lets them place their wires), thus reducing the number of potential competitors who can profitably deploy Internet service—such as AT&T's U-Verse, Google Fiber, and Verizon FiOS. Kickbacks may include municipal requirements for ISPs such as building out service where it is not demanded, donating equipment, and delivering free broadband to government buildings.[213] Counterweight to server-side non-neutrality Those in favor of forms of non-neutral tiered Internet access argue that the Internet is already not a level playing field, that large companies achieve a performance advantage over smaller competitors by providing more and better-quality servers and buying high-bandwidth services. Should scrapping of net neutrality regulations precipitate a price drop for lower levels of access, or access to only certain protocols, for instance, such would make Internet usage more adaptable to the needs of those individuals and corporations who specifically seek differentiated tiers of service. Network expert[214] Richard Bennett has written, "A richly funded Web site, which delivers data faster than its competitors to the front porches of the Internet service providers, wants it delivered the rest of the way on an equal basis. This system, which Google calls broadband neutrality, actually preserves a more fundamental inequality."[215] Prevent overuse of bandwidth Since the early 1990s, Internet traffic has increased steadily. The arrival of picture-rich websites and MP3s led to a sharp increase in the mid-1990s followed by a subsequent sharp increase since 2003 as video streaming and Peer-to-peer file sharing became more common.[216][217] In reaction to companies including YouTube, as well as smaller companies starting to offer free video content, using substantial amounts of bandwidth, at least one Internet service provider (ISP), SBC Communications (now AT&T Inc.), has suggested that it should have the right to charge these companies for making their content available over the provider's network.[218] Bret Swanson of the Wall Street Journal wrote in 2007 that the popular websites of that time, including YouTube, MySpace, and blogs, were put at risk by net neutrality. He noted that, at the time, YouTube streamed as much data in three months as the world's radio, cable and broadcast television channels did in one year, 75 petabytes. He argued that networks were not remotely prepared to handle the amount of data required to run these sites. He also argued that net neutrality would prevent broadband networks from being built, which would limit available bandwidth and thus endanger innovation.[219] One example of these concerns was the "series of tubes" analogy, which was presented by US senator Ted Stevens during a committee hearing in the US senate in 2006. Potentially increased taxes FCC commissioner Ajit Pai, who opposed the net neutrality ruling, claims that the ruling issued by the FCC to impose Title II regulations allow new fees and taxes on broadband by subjecting them to the telephone-style taxes under the Universal Service Fund. Net neutrality proponent Free Press argues that, "the average potential increase in taxes and fees per household would be far less" than the estimate given by net neutrality opponents, and that if there were to be additional taxes, the tax figure may be around US$4 billion. Under favorable circumstances, "the increase would be exactly zero".[220] Meanwhile, the Progressive Policy Institute claims that Title II could trigger taxes and fees up to $11 billion a year.[221] Financial website Nerd Wallet did their own assessment and settled on a possible US$6.25 billion tax impact, estimating that the average American household may see their tax bill increase US$67 annually.[221] FCC spokesperson Kim Hart said that the ruling "does not raise taxes or fees. Period."[221] However, the opposing commissioner, Ajit Pai, claims that "the plan explicitly opens the door to billions of dollars in new taxes on broadband ... These new taxes will mean higher prices for consumers and more hidden fees that they have to pay."[222] Pai explained that, "One avenue for higher bills is the new taxes and fees that will be applied to broadband. Here's the background. If you look at your phone bill, you’ll see a 'Universal Service Fee', or something like it. These fees – what most Americans would call taxes – are paid by Americans on their telephone service. They funnel about $9 billion each year through the FCC. Consumers haven't had to pay these taxes on their broadband bills because broadband has never before been a Title II service. But now it is. And so the Order explicitly opens the door to billions of dollars in new taxes."[168] Unnecessary regulations According to PayPal founder and Facebook investor Peter Thiel in 2011, "Net neutrality has not been necessary to date. I don't see any reason why it's suddenly become important, when the Internet has functioned quite well for the past 15 years without it. ... Government attempts to regulate technology have been extraordinarily counterproductive in the past."[170] Max Levchin, the other co-founder of PayPal, echoed similar statements, telling CNBC, "The Internet is not broken, and it got here without government regulation and probably in part because of lack of government regulation."[223] Opponents of new federal net neutrality policies point to the success of the Internet as a sign that new regulations are not necessary. They argue that the freedom which websites, ISPs and consumers have had to settle their own disputes and compete through innovation is the reason why the Internet has been such a rapid success. One of Congress’s most outspoken critics of net neutrality regulations is Senator Ted Cruz from Texas, who points out that "innovation [on the Internet] is happening without having to go to government and say 'Mother, may I?' What happens when the government starts regulating a service as a public utility is it calcifies everything and freezes it in place."[224] In regulating how the Internet is provided, opponents argue that the government will hinder innovation on the web. FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai, who was one of the two commissioners who opposed the net neutrality proposal, criticized the FCC's ruling on Internet neutrality, stating that the perceived threats from ISPs to deceive consumers, degrade content, or disfavor the content that they dislike are non-existent: "The evidence of these continuing threats? There is none; it's all anecdote, hypothesis, and hysteria. A small ISP in North Carolina allegedly blocked VoIP calls a decade ago. Comcast capped BitTorrent traffic to ease upload congestion eight years ago. Apple introduced Facetime over Wi-Fi first, cellular networks later. Examples this picayune and stale aren't enough to tell a coherent story about net neutrality. The bogeyman never had it so easy."[168] FCC Commissioner Mike O'Reilly, the other opposing commissioner, also claims that the ruling is a solution to a hypothetical problem, "Even after enduring three weeks of spin, it is hard for me to believe that the Commission is establishing an entire Title II/net neutrality regime to protect against hypothetical harms. There is not a shred of evidence that any aspect of this structure is necessary. The D.C. Circuit called the prior, scaled-down version a 'prophylactic' approach. I call it guilt by imagination."[225] In a Chicago Tribune article, FCC Commissioner Pai and Joshua Wright of the Federal Trade Commission argue that "the Internet isn't broken, and we don't need the president's plan to 'fix' it. Quite the opposite. The Internet is an unparalleled success story. It is a free, open and thriving platform."[90] http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/69892-the-end-of-net-neutrality/?tab=comments#comment-1209774637 Here is another good argument: https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshsteimle/2014/05/14/am-i-the-only-techie-against-net-neutrality/#2c78ae9170d5
  5. It can also lead to debilitating bias which clouds judgment and limits perspective. It is not “all good”.
  6. Not necessarily. I think that he was technically right that a revelation was not necessary, but it certainly was helpful to assure the brethren and membership.
  7. Spiritual self reliance

    Why is it less self-reliant to get a hand out from the government instead of the church? I think you are right, and that is still the goal. The only difference is that they removed the word "never", as in "we should never turn to the government" has been removed. Self reliance teaches us to work towards being productive, but it does not counsel us to starve and never ask for help if circumstances are against us. Starving is not self-reliant. Self reliance would require us to ask for assistance until we can get back up on our feet.
  8. Resurrection Question

    This reminded me of a conference talk given by Neil L. Anderson: How much we know is relative to what we are comparing ourselves against. Compared to the rest of the world, the church does indeed know a lot (relatively speaking), compared to all that can be known, we know very little. I think Elder Anderson said it best though, "you know enough".
  9. Resurrection Question

    Do you have a reference for this? This subject is currently being discussed in the CH1 thread.
  10. Progression Between Kingdoms

    I can address that one. While I agree, at present, that there is no kingdom jumping, I do see legitimate reason to believe otherwise. I just like to play devils advocate sometimes to help me explore our doctrines from different perspectives. It is clear that different bodies will be resurrected to different states of glory. If I understand you correctly, the problem with the kingdom jumping theory is that bodies will need to be changed in order to do that. I don't understand why that is a problem however since it is already established doctrine that bodies can, and will, change in glory even after resurrection. Example 1) Resurrection happens before final judgment. So, celestial and terrestrial bodies which take part in the millennium can still fall from grace when Satan will be released at the end of the millennium. So , celestial beings can become terrestrial, etc. even after being resurrected to a celestial state. Example 2) God can cease to be God if he does not obey eternal law. That means that even God can fall from grace. Example 3) There are subdivisions within kingdoms, just as "one star differs from another star in glory". We know for sure that there is progression within kingdoms. So if a body can change/progress in glory within a kingdom, there is no theological reason to suggest that it can't change/progress beyond kingdoms. Our bodies can physically change and grow in "glory" with good diet and exercise/weight lifting, I don't see why our resurrected bodies can't do the same with some spiritual weightlifting.
  11. Progression Between Kingdoms

    I am not discounting those possible interpretations. But in the end, it doesn't really matter which interpretation is correct because either way, it is all conjecture. All that really matters is that the church has admittedly stated that the brethren are in disagreement about this subject, and they do not take a position. So even if you are right about Elder Clark, there are still others who disagree with that position. My purpose is simply to show that while interesting to discuss, there is no doctrine on the matter and not even the brethren are in agreement admittedly.
  12. CH1 Now online for all membership

    What if said theory is not literal or doctrinal? In 7-10 years, you will have a whole new body, so which material will be resurrected? Who's body does your flesh belong to in the resurrection anyway? Does it belong to you, or the plants and animals that you are made from? They to will take part in the resurrection after all. This discussion is happening in the resurrection thread if you want to take part.
  13. Progression Between Kingdoms

    CV75, the church has clearly stated that the brethren are not in agreement on this matter. It is pointless to try and interpret everyone as if they are in agreement, when they are admittedly not all in agreement. Clearly some brethren do believe in, and accept the idea of progression between kingdoms. So, if not these brethren, then whom? It seems reasonable to me that these are the most likely candidates.
  14. Resurrection Question

    If we are to take that literally, then someone is going to need to get a backhoe and dig up my grave and raise up my casket with a "lowering device", find the mortician that laid me in the casket and ask them to pull me back out just as I was laid down The resurrection of the same bodies we have at death simply is not possible (for everyone). What we should take as literal is this - "you are what you eat". The building blocks of your physical body are donated (probably unwillingly) from other living things. Considering that all of God's creation will be resurrected via the atonement of Christ (see links below), that means that the resurrection will of necessity be from other matter other than your body (because your body doesn't belong to you alone, but it also belongs to all the plant and animal bodies that you have eaten. So, who gets "your" body in the resurrection when it belongs to a multitude of other bodies too? IT is an impossible scenario without using new matter. Here is what you have to understand, it is still the same body even if new matter is used. Our body replace every single cell in our body every 7-10 years from new matter. You don't have the same body that you were born with, yet you have only had one body. http://emp.byui.edu/marrottr/resurrection_animals.pdf http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Animals
  15. Progression Between Kingdoms

    I particularly appreciate what B.H. Roberts said here, and think we all need to keep this in mind: While it is interesting to discuss, lets be careful not to overstate our positions.