I agree with you, but he wasn't fired for doing the Hokie Pokie during the election. He was probably fired because he won't close the Russian investigation, and Trump has no patience with anyone who is not a yes-man.
Agreed, but classified emails on a home computer will get you reprimanded but not convicted. So... why is the email the most important part of the whole situation in your opinion? That's more important than cabinet members being caught lying about meetings with Russians? More important than an FBI director (intentionally or not) affecting an election by providing false information?
Comey hates the Clintons. He was part of the republican witch hunt against Bill in the 90s. So he was part of the republican witch hunt against Hillary last year, and was pissed that there was never enough evidence to convict her, which explains his rant during the summer where he declined to indict her but made it damn clear he wished he could, ignoring normal FBI procedure.
I doubt that Comey really wanted Trump to win, but (like Putin) he wanted to attack and weaken Hillary. I suspect that he dislikes Trump but like most republicans he'd support Charles Manson if Hillary were the other choice.
And now he's stuck. He knows that some of Trump's people talked to Russians and lied about it (probably not intending to sell out the US, but this kinda thing is serious), so he continues the investigation which makes Trump fire him (because Trump has the emotional control of a six-year-old with a sugar high). I doubt if Comey has planned anything besides his careful self-justifications.
The other possibility that occurs to me is that Trump, in his fixation with Hillary Clinton, intends to double down.
What fixation? As soon as the election was over Trump stopped caring about Hillary's "crimes". He didn't really care even before, but it made him popular when he pretended and he loves being popular.
I suspect that he's getting rid of Comey because Comey isn't playing ball quashing the Russia investigation, and Trump's all about childish outrage when anyone "defys him". Also, no republicans in DC will help Comey because this will just hasten the Russia investigation, and most republicans in DC hate President Trump but would love President Pence.
Microsoft did not have a monopoly on personal computers, but all you need is "monopoly power" which they did have, They had more than 90% of the market, including OS/2, Macs, etc.
Apple has no monopoly power with their app store; far less than 50% of smartphones can use their apps. Google's app store works on many more phones, though the amazon app store (and many others) weakens the argument, Maybe both together?
But installing the Spotify app on any iOS or android phone is almost no effort, so this complaint does sound like sour grapes.
No, police have to write up detailed reports about any arrest. If that report did not include the fact that the search happened twice, and that the video was a reenactment, then the reasonable assumption is that the officer tried to pull a fast one.
It may not have been truly malicious or intended to deceive; we humans are really good at justifying our actions to ourselves. But it was illegal and unethical and (I believe) should result in punishment, or else we erode trust in the police.
I just read the EFF status report linked from TFA and the summary. I'm usually a big fan of the EFF and what they do, but this status report seems completely devoid of actual privacy violations.
Section 1 (which is most of the status report) is "survey results". They sent out a survey saying "do you completely understand you child's school's privacy policy", and unsurprisingly almost nobody does. Which is a problem, but not a privacy problem. If you asked most people "do you completely understand all of the subsections of your mortgage or lease", they would also not have a clue, but that doesn't mean that all landlords or mortgage companies are screwing people over (beyond the usual power-imbalance issues which we all understand).
Section 2 is "Legal Analysis" which has sections like "Potential Violations of the Pledge". It mentions a lot of potential problems, but doesn't go into details of any actual violations.
Section 3 is "Recommendations", which also doesn't seem to detail actual problems.
EFF, if Google is doing something with student information which is underhanded, just tell us. Don't spread FUD without any evidence.
Sawyer, July 20: In reality, $30-100 probably constitutes a loss for [Planned Parenthood]. The costs associated with collection, processing, storage, and inventory and records management for specimens are very high. Most hospitals will provide tissue blocks... for research, and cost recover for their time and effort in the range of $100-500 per case/block. In the realm of tissues for research $30-100 is completely reasonable and normal fee.
On July 21, the Center for Medical Progress released a second, similar video, again featuring a discussion with a Planned Parenthood official in a restaurant. The numbers mentioned in the edited video are similar to what Nucatola said. The official, Mary Gatter, quotes a rate of $75 per specimen, and says she was thinking of saying $50. The discussion only reaches $100 because the “buyers” in the video mention higher prices.
So, I think we can agree:
* PP is not making money when donating fetal tissue to research, if it is charging $30-$100 and hospitals charge $100-150. Note also that you are not complaining about those hospitals. Why is that?
* The Center for Medical Progress claims that their videos prove that PP is selling fetal tissue for money. They asked leading questions and edited the videos to try to make this point. Saying something when the facts say otherwise is what most 6-year-olds call "lying", though you may call it PR.
* Using the wrong stock footage (and not calling it out as stock footage in a "documentary" full of actual footage) would also be considered lying (nowadays, probably "alternative footage"). That doesn't imply that the rest of the footage is fake, but it does imply that any implications from those videos should be considered suspect.
In others they just had to show they didn't make a profit from the donation.
Err, yes. Donated fetal tissue is critical to many research efforts (we forget how terrible polio used to be). Like any tissue samples, it has to be packed up using specialized materials using trained technicians. You can get it from for-profit hospitals, who have high expenses, or places like PP, which have lower expenses and thus charge less. The fees are certainly not a useful profit center for PP (unless you assume that the conservative state investigators could have accused PP of illegally making money off of this but somehow decided not to mention it in the final reports.)
There is also a difference between breaking the law and skirting the law (much like the recordings in question).
No, recording audio in a two-party state without the proper permissions is breaking the law. If a webcam records a visitor to your house without their permission, it is illegal but you will probably not be convicted for it. On the other hand, if you set out to record people without their permission, then you change around the order of the questions and answers to try to frame them, well, you have a higher chance of being convicted.
It seems that you are saying that these folks illegally recorded people. They edited the recordings to make it seem that the people were engaging in illegal activity (ironic). They loudly proclaimed (lied) that their recordings proved illegal activity on the part of PP. But this was all a lying PR campaign, PP was perhaps distasteful but not illegal. And you are okay with this because you dislike things that PP is doing.
That is terrible. You are happy that these people bore false witness. Maybe you should consider that in the context of your morals and/or ethics.
Are you really asking this when about 20 seconds of googling would tell you? Wow. Not a fan of facts, I see.
In many states, recording audio when all parties have not agreed is very very illegal, yes. California is one of these states. The laws are complex, full of caveats and details, and vary between states and between audio and video recordings. Shows like "Marketplace" are very careful to stay on one side of the law. These yahoos were not, which means they probably committed a felony.
Also, shows like Marketplace tend to release excerpts which, when you hear the full clip, give a mostly accurate picture of what was going on. These guys edited the excepts, including mis-matched questions and answers, to give a false picture of what was going on. Some judges are lenient towards people who expose criminal activity, but few are lenient towards people who try to frame innocents.
As the summary said, "investigated by more than a dozen states, none of which found evidence supporting Daleiden's claim".
Most of those states were very conservative states, and most of the investigations were started with the intent of proving that PP was breaking the law.
And yet exactly ZERO states have announced that they found any wrongdoing by PP. Zero. These are states like Texas and Kansas, hardly liberal strongholds.
So, you can believe "folks you trust" who have claimed something but offered no evidence, or you can believe the states who dearly wanted to find something incriminating but who didn't. I mean, what you are saying is that the governments of Kansas and Texas really hate PP but have decided not to attack them this one time (while still trying to outlaw them and defund them). This makes no sense.
If I am understanding you correctly, it is legal in California to record visual evidence of a crime, but not audio of someone discussing willingness to do illegal things. This possibly answers my objection.
I'm not trying to be rude here, but did you really complain about the unfairness of the laws when you have NO IDEA WHAT THE LAWS ARE? Really?
Many states (plus the federal government for recordings across state lines) make a very large distinction between video and audio recording. Video is usually fine, with certain major limitations. Audio is often/usually not fine, again with many caveats. Every state is different.
If you try to compare the legality of video recordings (like most animal abuse recordings) and of these audio+video recordings, then you are just showing a complete lack of knowledge about the subject and a complete unwillingness to spend the 20 minutes of googling it would take to become partly informed. Please, take those 20 minutes.
And, again I'm not trying to be rude, but this shows that you don't really let facts get in the way of your opinions. You can continue on this way, or you can change and try to become informed. It's your choice, but it's kinda an important one I think.
You do realize that these folks recorded private citizens and employees of a non-profit, and not "the government", right? People seem really confused by this point, and I have no idea why.
People exposing illegal actions by PP/Democrats are criminal terrorists, not reporters/journalists.
And in this case, people who lie about exposing illegal actions are also criminals, though nobody but you seems to be calling them terrorists. Why do you think they are terrorists? That's kinda creepy.
Reporters and journalists get quotes then assemble them into a story. Zealots edit the quotes so that they seem to mean something very different than what they say. Sadly, there are more zealots that there should be in this world.
Criminals are reporters or zealots or anyone else who gets their quotes illegally. Some are prosecuted, some are not. The ones who put out true stories are usually not prosecuted, though there are exceptions. Really, the ones who put out false stories are also rarely prosecuted, but some judges get grumpy when people try to frame innocent folk.
These guys are zealots and criminals. I don't know if they'll be convicted; fake IDs and illegal recording are fairly minor and you know they will have very well funded defenses.
If there is an exception for being a journalist, then they are going to get off because they where acting like journalists doing an investigative report on PP, which they released to the public and it became news.
When you edit the recordings, changing the order of questions and answers so that it sounds like someone is breaking the law when they are not, then you are not a journalist.
In the past, a few (fortunately very few) journalists have completely skewed undercover operations like this. And whenever those people are caught, they usually lose their jobs and are never hired or respected again, and their employer takes a huge credibility hit, because they WERE NOT ACTING AS JOURNALISTS. This encourages other journalists to not do this, and news outlets to not let their employees do this. It's not a perfect system, but it usually works well enough. Just like this case, except for the many people who despite all of the evidence believe these criminals uncovered something.
You may have missed the "investigated by more than a dozen states, none of which found evidence" bit of the story. And most of the states were conservative states with investigators who really, really wanted to find evidence. Either every single Planned Parenthood clinic is staffed entirely by loyal criminal geniuses who make Lex Luthor seem an idiot, or they did nothing illegal or wrong. A few clinics donated fetal tissue to research, and received a pittance for it for their costs. And likely less than their cost, because if it were even one penny more than their cost, then at least one of those states would have announced it.
Several:
* Walking to a cafe in the next building and eating with co-workers is much faster than walking/driving to a restaurant some distance away. Plus employees tend to talk shop over lunch. => more working hours per day.
* The company has some control over the food served, and can encourage healthier eating. => lower health care costs
* For large campuses, the surrounding area simply cannot absorb that many people for lunch.
* Happier employees (with more money in their pockets)
* Catered meals for events are much cheaper.
Some years ago a company where I worked got rid of their nice coffee machine and replaced it with a cheap model that people hated. Many people started taking breaks to walk to a coffee shop a block away (30-60 minutes of lost work depending on the weather and context-switching), and morale took a big hit.
This is a great idea. I'm sad that kids with stupid parents cannot get into school, but it's not worth risking all of the other kids, especially those who cannot get the vaccine due to medical reasons.
Do self driving cars need driver permits and insurance. Will they be allowed to drive at night or in the rain?
States are developing certification systems, so yes, there will be "driver permits", though I suspect they will be for the sensor/software combo rather than "per physical computer/driver".
All cars on the road need insurance, so yes. Self-driving cars will make many fewer mistakes than humans, but certainly not zero mistakes.
I don't see why they wouldn't be allowed to drive at night or in the rain? I mean, LIDAR is insanely better than human eyes in the dark. Rain is a challenge, but it's as hard for humans as computers. Plus computers, unlike humans, will be smart enough to slow down when visibility or road conditions are bad.
This seems like an important next step. Expecting even a trained human to take over with only a few seconds (or less) leeway is crazy and cannot work.
I expect that these regulations will evolve a bit as we see which self-driving car developers can handle this and which ones cannot. There will likely be a few accidents, hopefully none serious. But since these cars have no egos and no temper, they're likely to drive far safer than the average human.
I've had US ISPs block incoming port 80, for example. It's been a while though; I've had business service at home forever and have stopped helping friends with their service.
As others have said, it was tried in the 90s and worked perfectly (a real free market; real competition; more choices for consumers). Also lower profits for huge incumbent ISPs, which was not a goal but is a natural consequence of the other effects.
Those regulations only affected copper. Which is why Verizon and other baby bells moved most of their profitable areas to fiber, and sold off DSL in those areas. They can be as anti-competitive as they want with fiber.
I don't know the state of those regulations, but since Verizon stopped rolling out new fiber (except where Google Fiber is deployed) I suspect that the regulations ended. Maybe someone in that industry can say.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with you, but he wasn't fired for doing the Hokie Pokie during the election. He was probably fired because he won't close the Russian investigation, and Trump has no patience with anyone who is not a yes-man.
Agreed, but classified emails on a home computer will get you reprimanded but not convicted. So... why is the email the most important part of the whole situation in your opinion? That's more important than cabinet members being caught lying about meetings with Russians? More important than an FBI director (intentionally or not) affecting an election by providing false information?
Comey hates the Clintons. He was part of the republican witch hunt against Bill in the 90s. So he was part of the republican witch hunt against Hillary last year, and was pissed that there was never enough evidence to convict her, which explains his rant during the summer where he declined to indict her but made it damn clear he wished he could, ignoring normal FBI procedure.
I doubt that Comey really wanted Trump to win, but (like Putin) he wanted to attack and weaken Hillary. I suspect that he dislikes Trump but like most republicans he'd support Charles Manson if Hillary were the other choice.
And now he's stuck. He knows that some of Trump's people talked to Russians and lied about it (probably not intending to sell out the US, but this kinda thing is serious), so he continues the investigation which makes Trump fire him (because Trump has the emotional control of a six-year-old with a sugar high). I doubt if Comey has planned anything besides his careful self-justifications.
The other possibility that occurs to me is that Trump, in his fixation with Hillary Clinton, intends to double down.
What fixation? As soon as the election was over Trump stopped caring about Hillary's "crimes". He didn't really care even before, but it made him popular when he pretended and he loves being popular.
I suspect that he's getting rid of Comey because Comey isn't playing ball quashing the Russia investigation, and Trump's all about childish outrage when anyone "defys him". Also, no republicans in DC will help Comey because this will just hasten the Russia investigation, and most republicans in DC hate President Trump but would love President Pence.
That's not quite right.
Microsoft did not have a monopoly on personal computers, but all you need is "monopoly power" which they did have, They had more than 90% of the market, including OS/2, Macs, etc.
Apple has no monopoly power with their app store; far less than 50% of smartphones can use their apps. Google's app store works on many more phones, though the amazon app store (and many others) weakens the argument, Maybe both together?
But installing the Spotify app on any iOS or android phone is almost no effort, so this complaint does sound like sour grapes.
No, police have to write up detailed reports about any arrest. If that report did not include the fact that the search happened twice, and that the video was a reenactment, then the reasonable assumption is that the officer tried to pull a fast one.
It may not have been truly malicious or intended to deceive; we humans are really good at justifying our actions to ourselves. But it was illegal and unethical and (I believe) should result in punishment, or else we erode trust in the police.
I think you are getting your conspiracy villains mixed up; this company is linked to Tesla not Alphabet. DIfferent branches of the Illuminati.
As opposed to using (much more expensive) Apple or Microsoft devices to go online, where you have guaranteed privacy!
I just read the EFF status report linked from TFA and the summary. I'm usually a big fan of the EFF and what they do, but this status report seems completely devoid of actual privacy violations.
Section 1 (which is most of the status report) is "survey results". They sent out a survey saying "do you completely understand you child's school's privacy policy", and unsurprisingly almost nobody does. Which is a problem, but not a privacy problem. If you asked most people "do you completely understand all of the subsections of your mortgage or lease", they would also not have a clue, but that doesn't mean that all landlords or mortgage companies are screwing people over (beyond the usual power-imbalance issues which we all understand).
Section 2 is "Legal Analysis" which has sections like "Potential Violations of the Pledge". It mentions a lot of potential problems, but doesn't go into details of any actual violations.
Section 3 is "Recommendations", which also doesn't seem to detail actual problems.
EFF, if Google is doing something with student information which is underhanded, just tell us. Don't spread FUD without any evidence.
Brin and Page of Alphabet (Google) don't seem particularly narcissistic. You don't consider Google a big corporation?
From http://www.factcheck.org/2015/07/unspinning-the-planned-parenthood-video/
Sawyer, July 20: In reality, $30-100 probably constitutes a loss for [Planned Parenthood]. The costs associated with collection, processing, storage, and inventory and records management for specimens are very high. Most hospitals will provide tissue blocks ... for research, and cost recover for their time and effort in the range of $100-500 per case/block. In the realm of tissues for research $30-100 is completely reasonable and normal fee.
On July 21, the Center for Medical Progress released a second, similar video, again featuring a discussion with a Planned Parenthood official in a restaurant. The numbers mentioned in the edited video are similar to what Nucatola said. The official, Mary Gatter, quotes a rate of $75 per specimen, and says she was thinking of saying $50. The discussion only reaches $100 because the “buyers” in the video mention higher prices.
So, I think we can agree:
* PP is not making money when donating fetal tissue to research, if it is charging $30-$100 and hospitals charge $100-150. Note also that you are not complaining about those hospitals. Why is that?
* The Center for Medical Progress claims that their videos prove that PP is selling fetal tissue for money. They asked leading questions and edited the videos to try to make this point. Saying something when the facts say otherwise is what most 6-year-olds call "lying", though you may call it PR.
* Using the wrong stock footage (and not calling it out as stock footage in a "documentary" full of actual footage) would also be considered lying (nowadays, probably "alternative footage"). That doesn't imply that the rest of the footage is fake, but it does imply that any implications from those videos should be considered suspect.
In others they just had to show they didn't make a profit from the donation.
Err, yes. Donated fetal tissue is critical to many research efforts (we forget how terrible polio used to be). Like any tissue samples, it has to be packed up using specialized materials using trained technicians. You can get it from for-profit hospitals, who have high expenses, or places like PP, which have lower expenses and thus charge less. The fees are certainly not a useful profit center for PP (unless you assume that the conservative state investigators could have accused PP of illegally making money off of this but somehow decided not to mention it in the final reports.)
There is also a difference between breaking the law and skirting the law (much like the recordings in question).
No, recording audio in a two-party state without the proper permissions is breaking the law. If a webcam records a visitor to your house without their permission, it is illegal but you will probably not be convicted for it. On the other hand, if you set out to record people without their permission, then you change around the order of the questions and answers to try to frame them, well, you have a higher chance of being convicted.
It seems that you are saying that these folks illegally recorded people. They edited the recordings to make it seem that the people were engaging in illegal activity (ironic). They loudly proclaimed (lied) that their recordings proved illegal activity on the part of PP. But this was all a lying PR campaign, PP was perhaps distasteful but not illegal. And you are okay with this because you dislike things that PP is doing.
That is terrible. You are happy that these people bore false witness. Maybe you should consider that in the context of your morals and/or ethics.
Is recording someone really a felony?.
Are you really asking this when about 20 seconds of googling would tell you? Wow. Not a fan of facts, I see.
In many states, recording audio when all parties have not agreed is very very illegal, yes. California is one of these states. The laws are complex, full of caveats and details, and vary between states and between audio and video recordings. Shows like "Marketplace" are very careful to stay on one side of the law. These yahoos were not, which means they probably committed a felony.
Also, shows like Marketplace tend to release excerpts which, when you hear the full clip, give a mostly accurate picture of what was going on. These guys edited the excepts, including mis-matched questions and answers, to give a false picture of what was going on. Some judges are lenient towards people who expose criminal activity, but few are lenient towards people who try to frame innocents.
As the summary said, "investigated by more than a dozen states, none of which found evidence supporting Daleiden's claim".
Most of those states were very conservative states, and most of the investigations were started with the intent of proving that PP was breaking the law.
And yet exactly ZERO states have announced that they found any wrongdoing by PP. Zero. These are states like Texas and Kansas, hardly liberal strongholds.
So, you can believe "folks you trust" who have claimed something but offered no evidence, or you can believe the states who dearly wanted to find something incriminating but who didn't. I mean, what you are saying is that the governments of Kansas and Texas really hate PP but have decided not to attack them this one time (while still trying to outlaw them and defund them). This makes no sense.
If I am understanding you correctly, it is legal in California to record visual evidence of a crime, but not audio of someone discussing willingness to do illegal things. This possibly answers my objection.
I'm not trying to be rude here, but did you really complain about the unfairness of the laws when you have NO IDEA WHAT THE LAWS ARE? Really?
Many states (plus the federal government for recordings across state lines) make a very large distinction between video and audio recording. Video is usually fine, with certain major limitations. Audio is often/usually not fine, again with many caveats. Every state is different.
If you try to compare the legality of video recordings (like most animal abuse recordings) and of these audio+video recordings, then you are just showing a complete lack of knowledge about the subject and a complete unwillingness to spend the 20 minutes of googling it would take to become partly informed. Please, take those 20 minutes.
And, again I'm not trying to be rude, but this shows that you don't really let facts get in the way of your opinions. You can continue on this way, or you can change and try to become informed. It's your choice, but it's kinda an important one I think.
You do realize that these folks recorded private citizens and employees of a non-profit, and not "the government", right? People seem really confused by this point, and I have no idea why.
People exposing illegal actions by PP/Democrats are criminal terrorists, not reporters/journalists.
And in this case, people who lie about exposing illegal actions are also criminals, though nobody but you seems to be calling them terrorists. Why do you think they are terrorists? That's kinda creepy.
Reporters and journalists get quotes then assemble them into a story. Zealots edit the quotes so that they seem to mean something very different than what they say. Sadly, there are more zealots that there should be in this world.
Criminals are reporters or zealots or anyone else who gets their quotes illegally. Some are prosecuted, some are not. The ones who put out true stories are usually not prosecuted, though there are exceptions. Really, the ones who put out false stories are also rarely prosecuted, but some judges get grumpy when people try to frame innocent folk.
These guys are zealots and criminals. I don't know if they'll be convicted; fake IDs and illegal recording are fairly minor and you know they will have very well funded defenses.
If there is an exception for being a journalist, then they are going to get off because they where acting like journalists doing an investigative report on PP, which they released to the public and it became news.
When you edit the recordings, changing the order of questions and answers so that it sounds like someone is breaking the law when they are not, then you are not a journalist.
In the past, a few (fortunately very few) journalists have completely skewed undercover operations like this. And whenever those people are caught, they usually lose their jobs and are never hired or respected again, and their employer takes a huge credibility hit, because they WERE NOT ACTING AS JOURNALISTS. This encourages other journalists to not do this, and news outlets to not let their employees do this. It's not a perfect system, but it usually works well enough. Just like this case, except for the many people who despite all of the evidence believe these criminals uncovered something.
You may have missed the "investigated by more than a dozen states, none of which found evidence" bit of the story. And most of the states were conservative states with investigators who really, really wanted to find evidence. Either every single Planned Parenthood clinic is staffed entirely by loyal criminal geniuses who make Lex Luthor seem an idiot, or they did nothing illegal or wrong. A few clinics donated fetal tissue to research, and received a pittance for it for their costs. And likely less than their cost, because if it were even one penny more than their cost, then at least one of those states would have announced it.
Does this have a measurable advantage/merit?
Several:
* Walking to a cafe in the next building and eating with co-workers is much faster than walking/driving to a restaurant some distance away. Plus employees tend to talk shop over lunch. => more working hours per day.
* The company has some control over the food served, and can encourage healthier eating. => lower health care costs
* For large campuses, the surrounding area simply cannot absorb that many people for lunch.
* Happier employees (with more money in their pockets)
* Catered meals for events are much cheaper.
Some years ago a company where I worked got rid of their nice coffee machine and replaced it with a cheap model that people hated. Many people started taking breaks to walk to a coffee shop a block away (30-60 minutes of lost work depending on the weather and context-switching), and morale took a big hit.
This is a great idea. I'm sad that kids with stupid parents cannot get into school, but it's not worth risking all of the other kids, especially those who cannot get the vaccine due to medical reasons.
Do self driving cars need driver permits and insurance. Will they be allowed to drive at night or in the rain?
States are developing certification systems, so yes, there will be "driver permits", though I suspect they will be for the sensor/software combo rather than "per physical computer/driver".
All cars on the road need insurance, so yes. Self-driving cars will make many fewer mistakes than humans, but certainly not zero mistakes.
I don't see why they wouldn't be allowed to drive at night or in the rain? I mean, LIDAR is insanely better than human eyes in the dark. Rain is a challenge, but it's as hard for humans as computers. Plus computers, unlike humans, will be smart enough to slow down when visibility or road conditions are bad.
This seems like an important next step. Expecting even a trained human to take over with only a few seconds (or less) leeway is crazy and cannot work.
I expect that these regulations will evolve a bit as we see which self-driving car developers can handle this and which ones cannot. There will likely be a few accidents, hopefully none serious. But since these cars have no egos and no temper, they're likely to drive far safer than the average human.
I've had US ISPs block incoming port 80, for example. It's been a while though; I've had business service at home forever and have stopped helping friends with their service.
As others have said, it was tried in the 90s and worked perfectly (a real free market; real competition; more choices for consumers). Also lower profits for huge incumbent ISPs, which was not a goal but is a natural consequence of the other effects.
Those regulations only affected copper. Which is why Verizon and other baby bells moved most of their profitable areas to fiber, and sold off DSL in those areas. They can be as anti-competitive as they want with fiber.
I don't know the state of those regulations, but since Verizon stopped rolling out new fiber (except where Google Fiber is deployed) I suspect that the regulations ended. Maybe someone in that industry can say.