As it should. NN is tricky. (I can't tell, did the sarc tag apply here also? If it did, ignore my post)
I'm sorry, but that is a mistaken belief. NN and QoS are in direct opposition to each other. You can have one, but never both. The internet must be made agnostic to be neutral. QoS is just the cheap way out of building robust infrastructure. It is done for expedience, not to raise "quality". It can serve well in a private intranet, but on the WAN QoS is pure politics to prioritize big money, and the client/server monopoly we are under today probably precludes anything else. There is a way and plenty of money to do it right, with neural, ad hoc, whatever-net, but there is little will while most people think what we have is "good enough". All hindrance to a better system is politically based. The technology already exists.
And also a good start would be to declare internet service as a public utility. Content is absolutely nobody's business, outside the sender and intended recipient. Try telling that to a European (or any other, for that matter) bureaucrat though. They'll try to control face to face communications.
The government is giving away money to its fat cat friends that will enjoy a nice cabinet position when the next president opens her little laundromat.
I'm more inclined to believe that the peasants will just comply with whatever the government tells them. As long as there is dinner on the table, not much is going to happen.
And what does that "wireless" connects to? If memory serves, somewhere along the line an ISP is involved. Or can we just shoot the signal straight into the Cloud® now?
Yeah, maybe somebody has... what about it? There are some good bits in libertarians, republicans, and democrats. Even our Mr. T can hit a nail every now and then. So what? The feds have been banging heads, sometimes where needed, many times in excess (Aliens and Sedition Act only a few years later), since the beginning. Maybe if you rephrased the post, the message, if there really is one, wouldn't be lost.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe they are upset with Twitter over something else entirely
NN usually allows QoS.
As it should. NN is tricky. (I can't tell, did the sarc tag apply here also? If it did, ignore my post)
I'm sorry, but that is a mistaken belief. NN and QoS are in direct opposition to each other. You can have one, but never both. The internet must be made agnostic to be neutral. QoS is just the cheap way out of building robust infrastructure. It is done for expedience, not to raise "quality". It can serve well in a private intranet, but on the WAN QoS is pure politics to prioritize big money, and the client/server monopoly we are under today probably precludes anything else. There is a way and plenty of money to do it right, with neural, ad hoc, whatever-net, but there is little will while most people think what we have is "good enough". All hindrance to a better system is politically based. The technology already exists.
And also a good start would be to declare internet service as a public utility. Content is absolutely nobody's business, outside the sender and intended recipient. Try telling that to a European (or any other, for that matter) bureaucrat though. They'll try to control face to face communications.
So they will probably make modern crypto illegal
Think they'll tear down Stonehenge?
The government is giving away money to its fat cat friends that will enjoy a nice cabinet position when the next president opens her little laundromat.
I'm more inclined to believe that the peasants will just comply with whatever the government tells them. As long as there is dinner on the table, not much is going to happen.
Most people don't want "neutrality", they want priority...
Net neutrality means dumb pipe. If your bits aren't getting through fast enough, you get a fatter pipe, not restrict other peoples' traffic.
What's next, a TSA checkpoint at the used car dealership?
Should that surprise you? Don't pay cash for that car...
And what does that "wireless" connects to? If memory serves, somewhere along the line an ISP is involved. Or can we just shoot the signal straight into the Cloud® now?
HTTPS? Hate to break the news to you. Internet security is an illusion.
Just checked the bathroom mirror. No it ain't!
I suppose they could block the traffic, but that's so trivially simple to get around...
How do you get around a cut cable?
so much for anybody ever using a British ISP for anything.
Mind telling me how they will get internet service then?
The only way is to make the ISPs to drop encrypted packets into Null Island.
Yes, I am afraid that trying to appear normal is indeed suspicious. Obviously you are hiding something
Hell, the national debt just jumped 3000%!
Now you have another reason not to use unicode here, as if there aren't enough already.
Some of them are. Same goes for democrats and republicans. You all are a barrel of laughs.
Yeah, maybe somebody has... what about it? There are some good bits in libertarians, republicans, and democrats. Even our Mr. T can hit a nail every now and then. So what? The feds have been banging heads, sometimes where needed, many times in excess (Aliens and Sedition Act only a few years later), since the beginning. Maybe if you rephrased the post, the message, if there really is one, wouldn't be lost.
untouchable by the USA
You'll have to get outside the solar system, at least.. Right now Jupiter, Saturn, Mars, and Pluto, and even the sun are under surveillance.
It might have mattered in the 1700s
Not really. You never could fight City Hall, even then.
It seems we're nearing the end of this little experiment.
The "experiment" barely ran three years
You overestimate yourself. Your little safe will be cracked before you can say aber-cadaver
Ha Ha! Another challenge! Game on!
I accept your challenge, nave! En garde!
What coverage?
How 'bout the coverage that got your response?