461–469 of 469 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is an order from the chief of the military ever considered illegal?
It worries me that this is a legitimate question. The chief of the military does not define law.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the case of the UK, there is a sealed letter in each Trident sub with instructions from the PM in case the nation's leaders have been terminated.
Yeah, I mentioned the letters of last resort, but while the letter will contain orders, the captain has sole launch authority, and it's difficult to imagine the system could work in a way that avoids that - whatever process you require the captain to follow, they could simply decide to follow that process as though the leadership were uncontactable.
The captain and some fixed number of executive officers. Possibly with redundancy for one or two crew being dead. The auth codes would cause a safe to unlock or message to de-crypt.
Presumably the instructions would be delivered to each authenticating member so that all could receive the orders simultaneously.
"Net Neutrality" in its final form did not solve or fix any problems with the Internet. The definition of "Net Neutrality" is poorly defined, too vague and does not have any proposed legislation attached to "fix" things. Even when new rules were implemented, ISPs still throttled torrents and manipulated traffic. The only way to fix the Internet is to do so from a technical perspective, not by adding more regulations…
It is similar to price controls, limiting the price a service can be offered at. Like price controls, it causes shortages by making the service too cheap for some users, increasing demand for them to use it even more, and making it too expensive for other users, who don't use it very much.
Let's say you're a company like Netflix, and you and/or your customers use 30% of an ISP's bandwidth. Why shouldn't you and/or your customers pay more for using more bandwidth? If Net Neutrality forces everyone to pay the same, then the costs of the extra bandwidth used by some customers will have to be paid by other customers, raising everyone's prices.
The idea of offering different levels of service at difference prices should be welcome, because it allows low-income people to afford the internet, and it ensures that enough resources are allocated for heavy-duty users. If Net Neutrality says that all internet services should be offered at the same bandwidth and same price, then it will raise the price for all customers, and it will make heavy users of the internet overuse it, making ISPs use throttling to avoid the inevitable overuse which occurs when prices are too low for some customers.
(Think of the 1970s gas shortages when Nixon instituted price controls -- the result was that customers had to be "throttled" by only being allowed to buy gas on certain days based on their license plate number. If this "throttling" wasn't done, there would be worst gas shortages and empty tanks because the heavy users would use up all of the gas because their demand for it is more than the price-controlled price indicates.)
As for blocking or throttling certain protocols/ports, this is wrong, but I think it's a symptom of other issues, such as security vulnerabilities, or overuse of a given level of service because it's priced too low.
I understand why tech companies and VCs want net neutrality. But this protest is what is wrong with Silicon Valley "culture". It's incredibly out of touch with reality. Are we really being asked to take this hill? Why? By whom? History will record the hundreds of thousands of children who will die of the current-and-present famine affecting East Africa and the Arabian Peninsula. It will only exacerbate the current, h…
How ironic. Without net neutrality, you might have more difficulty raising awareness about your cause of choice- famine. Yet, here you are railing against it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you want to ruin the internet more for the rest of the world today?
Because I want to protect it for the whole world for the future. Netflix, Google, Amazon, Facebook, Wikipedia, Twitter, Reddit, and other major services you use which are supporting net neutrality all started as American companies. If this measure fails, it's less likely that equally good companies will come from the resulting situation. Sorry about your Internet today, but they're doing it for your Internet tomorrow…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In that scenario a lawsuit would be the least of Twitter's problems. Best case scenario could easily be a treason charge.
US law only allows for treason charges during time of war.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I love this idea because I read too much cyberpunk. Why doesn't Twitter flex its muscle and cause a national crisis by tweeting "watch out China, nukes are coming" from Donald Trump's Twitter? That ruins trust in the platform, but what if they just banned the US president's account for TOS or something? Enormous amount of power. What if Musk's first ship to Mars had a hidden Railgun on it? "Anybody else that wants to…
> but what if they just banned the US president's account for TOS or something Because the US Government has terrifying amounts of power and can be very spiteful. Their ability to easily intimidate corporations has been demonstrated time and time again. See: NSA v tech, Qwest, broad anti-trust powers (which have nothing to do with monopoly and everything to do with subjective definitions), SEC, FTC, FCC, national sec…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For the technically literate, three letters: VPN. Unfortunately, they (we) are a minority. Also, it's double expense, especially if you do something like Netflix.
Also VPNs can be blocked easily. Look at China.
If Google were actually serious about Net Neutrality, they would use their insane market power to protect it. How? Well, a simple statement saying "any ISP who abuses net neutrality will have their customers cut off from Google products". No Google search, no YouTube, no Gmail. Have those requests instead redirect to a website telling the customer what their ISP is doing, why Google won't work with them, and how to c…
Your key assumption is that Google has all this market power. They don't. The only, and truly ONLY, reason that they're so big and powerful is that everyone automatically goes to google when in need of search. Their business would disappear in a hurry the day that changes. What's one way that could change? Google stops working for millions of people, so they start using another product.
Essentially, what i'm saying is they are not, and have not been for a very long time, about search
The money is mostly coming from advertising across these services and especially adwords and adsense