Is it just me, or does it seem a little hypocritical for the NYT to be lecturing others about "net neutrality" and insuring that the Internet "remain(s) free, and freely evolving?" The hypocrisy is that the NYT itself has walled off vast areas of its own content which use to be "free" and still is if you go to the library, make a copy and put it in your scrap book. So let's include in the definition of net neutrality the provision that if it's published openly anywhere at any time, and Brewster Kahle for example puts it in his Internet Archive, then its subject to net neutrality and free forever and the NYT can't make "profit-driven choices, rather than users' choices" and can't determine "which sites and methodologies succeed and fail" for its own content.
You just have to love Dr. John Malone. The guy's a certified genius but also a "what you see is what you get" straight-shooting kind of guy. His Ph.D. is from Johns Hopkins, BA is science from Yale, worth $2.3 billion (according to Forbes, but probably way low because they just couldn't find all of it). He ran TCI (America's largest Cable company) and sold it to ATT for $54 billion. He's the kind of person that you could just sit and listen to for hours. He's so logical, well informed and well spoken. In a recent interview with the Wall Street Journal here's a few nuggets from what he had to say... (I agree with him about Obama) WSJ: What are the biggest risks for Liberty right now? Mr. Malone: I think the biggest concern I have for the next year or two would be on the retail side, because of the consumer sentiment and the macro conditions. The concerns really tend to be much more macro: Is America going to make it, rather than are we going to make it?...
Comments