351–360 of 469 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hopefully the soldier is like Stanislav Petrov. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov
The world should have a national holiday in his honor. Possibly more deserved then any other human in history.
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…
> cause a national crisis by tweeting "watch out China, nukes are coming" from Donald Trump's Twitter? Are you serious? That would cause actual people to die. And Twitter will end up with a huge lawsuit.
Sorry Google (and FB, Amazon, etc.) this doesn't actually count as taking action. Not even a single link on their home page. An obscure post on a blog won't do shit. Let's stop pretending that you want net neutrality, Google, et al. Day of action my fucking ass.
Amazon does have a Net Neutrality link on their front page - on the right sidebar for me at least. That being said, it all just kind of feels underwhelming.
I have never understood the need for net neutrality. That doesn't mean we don't need it, it means that no one has ever explained the need to me in a way that makes sense. Give me real world examples. What has any ISP done that would violate Net Neutrality that I would object to?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To the best of my knowledge, there is no safeguard in place that could prevent such a course of action if it were attempted I can tell you for certain that there are dozens of safeguards. That scenario not only isn't possible, it's not plausible. Yes the President has the "codes" but those codes don't launch the missiles [1]. The scenario described is one in which there are literally nuclear warheads on a ballistic t…
I'm afraid that you have misunderstood the Bloomberg article. Nothing in it is about checking the power of the president (it says itself the president determines when to end the meetings and whether to ignore advice). It is all about verifying that The President has issued the order, and then ensuring that order is carried out. The President is contacted in this scenario simply because he's the only one who can actua…
The entire point of the US command and control system is to guarantee that the President and only the President is capable of authorizing nuclear war whenever he needs to.
Yes, legally and formally. Informally though, as I said, it won't go down like that, especially if it's not completely unambiguous that there is a nuclear attack on the US.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I love this idea because I read too much cyberpunk "go on..." > What if Musk's first ship to Mars had a hidden Railgun on it? "oh god... don't stop!" > ... the secret passcode of another person ... brilliant. yeah... we (in the US) gave AI/meta-cognative-entities/"corporations" a type of inalienable right with the Citizens United ruling. and now the gov't is going to find out what happens when those entities start…
> yeah... we (in the US) gave AI/meta-cognative-entities/"corporations" a type of inalienable right with the Citizens United ruling. Except that's not true. Corporations have always had personhood. See 1 U.S.C. §1 [0]: > In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise— > ... > the words "person" and "whoever" include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships,…
Always? You cite the U.S. Code, which was first published when? 1926.
>Donating your money to a non-profit is a form of speech, no?
It's a hell of a lot different when it comes to influencing people during elections. Bad analogy, and an insincere play to the audience here with the EFF. If we allow money to be speech, we allow outsized influence on governance by a few. Corporations have much more money to spend on campaigns which works against the public interest.
> Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company
The precedent of corporate personhood didn't even come from arguments in the case, it came from an oral remark by the Chief Justice Morrison Waite, who earlier worked as a lawyer for railroads. It was recorded by the court recorder J.C. Bancroft Davis, who earlier was a president of a railroad. The precedent and its house of cards should be thrown out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is exactly what I thought. Went to reddit.com...where's the Net Neutrality protest? Oh I just realized they made their logo a gif that looks like it loads slow...and they made a post... Went to google.com...the doodle is unrelated and I saw nothing about net neutrality on the site... Went to mozilla.org and I see absolutely nothing about it. I feel like I must be missing something here. Hackernews...looks the sa…
Actually, twitter trending a hashtag on it is pretty good given that is their core product. The rest, yes I agree.
I would be curious if users even look at those on mobile since it requires more effort to see.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are there any examples of this happening?
Sure, https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-vio...
As a New Zealander, I find it extraordinarily inappropriate that global infrastructure like the Internet is being shaped by the whims of US politics and corporate culture. The Internet is a global network of global concern and it should be above the manoeuvring of Republicans and American Internet providers
Are there any examples of this happening?
Thanks in part to net neutrality, the open internet has grown to become an unrivaled source of choice, competition, innovation, free expression, and opportunity. Unless my history is wrong, and please correct me if that is the case, until the Title II decision in 2015, there were no regulations preventing an ISP from discriminating network traffic. So to say that Net Neutrality has been key to an open internet from 1…
> Unless my history is wrong, and please correct me if that is the case, until the Title II decision in 2015, there were no regulations preventing an ISP from discriminating network traffic. So to say that Net Neutrality has been key to an open internet from 1980-2015 seems without merit. The net neutrality was not necessary early on because it was not feasible in the past to control it on such large scale. So betwee…
Seems like breaking the local monopolies would solve all of these problems. Even with Title II it's still a huge problem and local ecosystems don't really benefit.
