Why on earth would we want to do that, and mix it into the seeds? This is an example of ecosphere pollution, and when we run out of food because all the seeds are genetically fucked up, well, who knows what the result will be.
Your opposition to genetically modified foods is about as rational, as George Bush's infamouse dislike for using stem-cells derived from embrios in research.
What part of my posting exactly struck you as "anti-American"
Right there, where you made fun of our desire to liberate Iraq...
If one shoots at me, I duck, and the bullet hits you -- do you blame me for the ducking or my enemy (who, BTW, is your enemy too, in the cases being discussed) for the shooting?
Well, if you've deliberately pissed off our enemy, know damn well I'm standing right behind you, and you're wearing a t-shirt saying "I'm an american citizen" in a part of the world where that's deeply unpopular, then yes, damn straight I'd blame you, at least in part.
In this case, I don't care if you get shot... There is nothing wrong with being an American citizen, and your blaming me for getting shot over it, means, you are ready to blame the victim (as in: "Her wearing the mini-skirt is the reason, she got raped."). I'll cheerfully pass the victimhood onto you by ducking...
Back to the RFID-enabled bombs, there is no need to really explode them necessarily. Triangulation will find, where they are, so they can be disabled (or even exploded after an evacuation). If the bomb is making ANY kind of radio broadcast, it can be detected. It does not matter, how infrequently it makes the broadcasts — it needs to make a lot of them to detect a target, but the detectors only need one or two to locate it.
Once again, I wish, our enemies were so dumb as to try this...
And that, right there, is why you're losing Iraq, you've lost the "hearts and minds" of Iraq and Afghanistan and your international reputation is going down the tubes.
Phhlease... Our internation reputation went down the tubes when we restarted this war. Iraqi fractions killing each other has not made our reputation worse.
Sure, someone else planted the bomb, but the US set it off, directly causing an atrocity that might otherwise never have happened.
If one shoots at me, I duck, and the bullet hits you — do you blame me for the ducking or my enemy (who, BTW, is your enemy too, in the cases being discussed) for the shooting?
Genius. Again, even if your zero-cost drones manage to somehow magically detect the infrequently-querying bomb, your best solution to terrorists setting up hidden bombs in highly-populated areas is to automatically explode them?
The anti-American, who started this thread, was particularly joyful about the fact, that the bomb will only kill Americans. If it is set in a crowded place, or, indeed, is triggered to go off by a detector independent of who is near it at the moment, then it sets the terrorists back to what they already have — an indiscriminate mass-killing device.
them. You'll really win the hearts and minds of the liberated Iraqis/Afghanis/whoever with that kind of consideration.
America has not placed that bomb... It happens almost daily in Baghdad today — people die in explosions intended to kill Americans...
The bomb would be programmed to only go off if it received a response to the signal immediately after sending the query pulse.
An American aircraft (a pilotless drone) could hover above with sensitive electronics listening for these inquiry signal made by the bombs. The typical RFID chip is not very sensitive, so the signal of the inquiring device (in a card-reader or a bomb alike) would have to be fairly strong. The aircraft's sensors will pick it up and respond quickly — enough times for it to explode, even it is smart enough to not do it on the first time.
Several such aircrafts will find the bomb via triangulation — within minutes.
You also don't want it to be sending out radio pulses advertising its position too often...
This kills the idea flat. It would have to do it often, or else it will never go off — the chances of it making the inquiry within the 10-20 seconds of an American passing by will to low otherwise.
Fooling their machine-executed algorithms is easy enough. Unfortunately, the enemy appears to trigger the explosions manually — such as by radio or cell-phone signal sent by a human...
You can have a thousand native citizens walk down a busy street, and the bomb doesn't go off until an American (or possibly, even a native with US embassy employee-ID) walks right past it.
It would be flat-out wonderful, if the enemy did this — especially, if they had placed a major production order for these, consuming Iran's full capacity for some time.
US would just explode all of them at once from the air by broadcasting the same radio waves, the RFID chips are designed to emit.
Unfortunately, the remaining enemies are much smarter than their sympathizers (flamebait my behind) — as one US general put it, all of the dumb ones are already dead.
Punitive damages should be paid to the government, with no lawyers' cut.
Do you really hate lawyers even more than the government? Do you really prefer, say, Eliot Spitzer's political motivations over the lawyers' financial ones? I don't...
Then we'd see how concerned the plaintiffs and lawyers really are about serving humanity through lawsuits.
It is impossible to root out the greed. The best practical solution — one that America has been exploiting since its early days — is to pitch one greed (lawyers' in this case) against the other (unscrupulous companies'). Free markets is another example of such pitching. Politicians are yet another...
The consumer, in the end continues to get ripped off; if not by one side, the other.
The compensatory damages would not amount to very much.
The idea of punitive damages is to, well, punish the guilty. It does not matter, where the money goes — the consumers benefit from the companies' not doing it again.
No, because one will first need to break into the legitimate user's own computer. Which is not even always online. It is possible, but harder than getting his (easy to guess) password.
at least with passwords you can have a different password for each server.
You can have multiple keys too, even on the same client. People even use different ones for different tasks (full logins vs. `cvs commit' vs. cvs-readonly operations). And, as you mention, these can be password protected.
This is not an argument, ssh-keys are better than simple passwords. By how much is another story...
They were domestic, and at best, playing at being terrorists.
The point was, even the "nice" foreign policy like Canada's is no insurance against terrorism. Every country needs to be vigilant and propositions like "let's try to be friendly instead of defending ourselves" are stupid. Such a proposition was contained in the posting, that started this thread.
Canada has successfully foiled a terrorist plot about a month ago. You should've seen it in the news. It included plans for major quantities of explosives and for the Prime Minister's decapitation.
Since when does "stop doing the wrong thing" imply appeasement? Just because your enemy tells you "stop doing the wrong thing" doesn't mean you shouldn't stop doing the wrong thing!
Yes, you should stop doing the wrong thing — you should never have started, actually. But when the enemy tells you to do it, there are two issues:
If an enemy says, some things are wrong, are they really wrong? And some things still are, but all things become suspect.
Acceding to the enemy's just demands, emboldens him to make unjust ones (such as by taking more hostages, or blowing up another building, or annexing Checkoslovakia).
This second one is of particular concern...
Your point appears to be that fixing the errors in yourself is fundamentally wrong.
Nope. My point was of a much more narrow scope — enough of the anti-US hostility is due to our just and noble actions, which we are not going to stop doing. Thus the threats will remain, and fantasizing about "all of us just getting along" is foolish.
but the fact remains that behaving in ways that reduce risks is an important part of prevention of every form of crime. Women and rape are no different in that regard than other groups and other crimes.
Terrorists, and other criminals are wrong. Saying: "WTC was attacked, it was America's own fault," — is no different from blaming a woman's attire for the rape. It is called "blaming the victim" and it is simply wrong — don't try to gloss over it with practical considerations.
The marginal extra cost of worrying about the additional hostility caused by our doing the wrong things is, uhh, non-existent or very small.
Quite to the contrary: a large part of anti-US terrorism is attributable to bad and often indefensible US foreign policies
You are dishonestly misreprenting what I said (also known as "strawman" fallacy). For the purely practical consideration I'm not comparing the amounts of terrorism attributable to our entire foreign policy vs. only the righteous parts of it (whichever they are). I'm comparing the costs of defenses against all threats vs. only those, that are aroused by our doing the just things. There is almost no difference in these costs — it is not like we have to defend additional airports because some of our past actions were unjust. Even if we were angels, we'd still have to defend them all...
If there is a way to disable the enemy's (military or rapist's) missile on approach, it should be widely deployed and used -- there are no "buts" about it.
There is no such way. The notion that you can protect a country like the US from terrorist attacks with military intervention or gadgets is a pipe dream.
'Been working so far — no attacks on the American soil since 2001... As for disabling a rapist, "Snow Crash" describes a nice, not-too-futuristic device...
The US can't even finance policing Iraq, let alone worldwide anti-terrorism efforts.
These are not related. At all. Don't mix the subjects.
In the face of widespread political oppression and poverty around the world, your sense of morality is little more than a self-serving sense of entitlement.
Whom are you trying to impress with this gobbledygook? What's wrong with my sense of morality?
There are billions of people around the world with nothing to lose, and unless you give them a stake in the economic game, they're going to keep coming at us.
Actually, there are very few people with nothing to lose. Certainly, the organizers of 9/11 were well educated and had illustrous careers before them. Bin Laden is/was a millionaire. They had their "stakes in the economic game". Your assertion is thus broken — don't cut yourself with pieces while looking for a replacement.
Now I can digress a bit. The stakes in the economic game are not given, they are earned. The idea of giving people things "volunterely" to keep them from robbing is sometimes put forward by the pragmatical (rather than the compassionate) proponents of welfare state. Like other kinds of appeasement, this is both morally wrong and practically ineffective (consider the crime-rates in the welfare-heavy neighborhoods) — even if the compassionate proponents' arguments have some merit.
"Which country did we invade to explain 9/11, USS Cole, etc?" Stop inventing the strawmen, and answer straight.
Assuming you accept U.S. government propaganda like the faked Bin Laden video tape, then the countries we invaded to provoke these attacks were Iraq and Saudi Arabia.
I do accept this propaganda, and believe the tape is real. We have invaded neither of the two countries you list though — Bush-senior stopped on the Iraq's border, and Saudis allowed us in (they were part of the anti-Iraq coalition in 1990 — their very good reason was, they were next on Saddam's list). Oops #1.
Just naming the highlights, we have the overthrow of the democratically elected Iranian government and the installation of the Shah
That was not an invasion. Oops #2.
the slavish financial and military support for Israel and its genocidal campaigns against the Palestinians
There are no "genocidal campaigns against the Palestinians". If there were, Palestinians would not have existed now — decades after the "campaigns" are alleged to have begun. As things stand, their population is growing faster than Israel's own.
But this was not our invasion either. Oops #3.
the support of various hated puppet regimes in the Middle East such as the Saudis; directly causing the deaths of 100,000's of Iraqi's after the first gulf war; the promised but withheld support of the Kurds and Shi'ites in their bid to overthrow Hussein after said war; etc.
None of these alleged misdeeds (oops-meter going crazy) were invasions. The question was: "Which country did we invade to explain 9/11, USS Cole, etc?" You failed to answer...
The patriot system didn't "intercept" scud missles, it detonated about half a kilometer in front of them, which is a very short distance at missle speeds. The detonation spread debris in front of the missle, which the missle hit at great speed, and BOOM, no more missle (more or less).
Thanks, very informative. But is not this a bigger threat to the surrounding area, than a thinly-targeted laser would be, even if it misses?
I doubt, it will ever miss, though — aiming it would be far easier, than aiming a missile — the algorithms are far easier to implement. The computers running them will also be better, because they would not be designed for flying inside a missile...
And even if it misses, that could be detected in an instant (before turning on full power) by some equivalent of the cops' "speed gun" (LIDAR or RADAR) to verify the distance to and the speed of the first item in the ray's path against those reported by the threat-detection system(s).
For additional safety (and efficiency), the system may use multiple lasers (from multiple points) with the energy of each one of them being insufficient for much damage. If one or two of them misfire — no harm, the intended target will still be fried by the rest, and nothing will be damaged anywhere outside the intended point of the rays' intersection. (Should I patent this?)
Mis-detecting the target (a false positive) will remain a concern of course, but so (or even worse) it is with "Patriot"'s mechanical aproach.
Many scud missles were missed because of improper operation and maintenance.
No doubt. It still seems, these new systems will be to "Patriot", what silicon chips are to vacuum tubes (which worked too, BTW).
They don't affect responsibility or culpability, but they certainly affect risk (you seem to be mixing up the two concepts).
I am not mixing up the two concepts — I even changed the subject to "Blaming the victim". The proponents of "changing ourselves" to attract less hostility are implicit (and often explicit — like yourself) about the hostility being our fault. They are profoundly wrong, but the meme is so strong, someone would always post it, whenever the talk is about weapons (even purely defensive ones) — and enough morons would call it "Insightful".
I don't want our foreign policy dictated by the (would be) enemies, and I don't want the women's clothing and behavior dictated by the (would be) rapists. If there is a way to disable the enemy's (military or rapist's) missile on approach, it should be widely deployed and used — there are no "buts" about it.
And while there are some instances where the US has made enemies because the US did the right thing
Yeah, "some instances" — like the biggest act of anti-US terror, that was the result of our "desecrating" the holy land of Saudi Arabia while protecting it (and Kuwait) from Saddam Hussein...
When Canada is the target of terrorism, it's likely because of their association with the US.
Right — if it is not Canada's fault, it is that of the US, is not it? Which country is not "associated" with the world's biggest economy today? North Korea?
By avoiding doing the wrong things in our foreign policy, we can probably reduce terrorism against the US far more effectively than with any kind of military campaign of missile shield. In fact, so far, the administration has failed to demonstrate that its efforts since 9/11 have yielded any reductions in terrorist threats.
Actually, it is the proponents of your idea — that it is easier/cheaper to appease the would-be enemies than to defend against them — who have failed to demonstrate that it would work.
Yes, now I am switching from the high-minded concept of culpability to the practicalities. Even you allow, that some (I say most) of the anti-American hostility is explained by US doing the right thing. I don't suppose you propose we stop doing those right things, which means, even according to you, we'll still have to worry about terrorism and invest into defensive installations like the one in TFA. The marginal extra cost of worrying about the additional hostility caused by our doing the wrong things is, uhh, non-existent or very small.
The concept of appeasing the enemy is thus defeated on both — the moral and the practical — sides. Again.
Sounds like they are intended for the same thing. Am I right?
They should be much better, though, because they'll be destroying with a ray, rather than a physical object. Much easier to aim, etc.
Their speed will also make them safer to use, because there'll be more time for the operators to examine the threat, and thus reduce incidents of "friendly fire".
If our morals and ethics prevent us from wiping out belligerent populations entirely, maybe, our technology will allow us to render their belligerence impotent.
It would be cheaper and easier if America and Israel fixed their foreign policies so that they'd bully less people and make less enemies.
It would be cheaper and easier if women stopped wearing mini-skirts and other suggestive clothing so that they'd arouse less people and make less rapists.
It does not work. There are plenty of rapes in the parts of the world, where women must cover themselves completely. Similarly, there are terror attacks (successful and foiled), against countries, whose foreign policies bully no one — like Canada or India.
Or so the introduction appears. The Gucci-clad evil people our out to steal the Internet (and Christmas).
"Reshape the Internet" sounds much like the recent "Great Internet plug-pulling by Congress" and the not so recent "Vote or Die!" attempts at fear-mongering.
Slashdot Mirror
Your opposition to genetically modified foods is about as rational, as George Bush's infamouse dislike for using stem-cells derived from embrios in research.
Right there, where you made fun of our desire to liberate Iraq...
In this case, I don't care if you get shot... There is nothing wrong with being an American citizen, and your blaming me for getting shot over it, means, you are ready to blame the victim (as in: "Her wearing the mini-skirt is the reason, she got raped."). I'll cheerfully pass the victimhood onto you by ducking...
Back to the RFID-enabled bombs, there is no need to really explode them necessarily. Triangulation will find, where they are, so they can be disabled (or even exploded after an evacuation). If the bomb is making ANY kind of radio broadcast, it can be detected. It does not matter, how infrequently it makes the broadcasts — it needs to make a lot of them to detect a target, but the detectors only need one or two to locate it.
Once again, I wish, our enemies were so dumb as to try this...
By "anti-American", I meant your earlier posting.
Phhlease... Our internation reputation went down the tubes when we restarted this war. Iraqi fractions killing each other has not made our reputation worse.
If one shoots at me, I duck, and the bullet hits you — do you blame me for the ducking or my enemy (who, BTW, is your enemy too, in the cases being discussed) for the shooting?
The anti-American, who started this thread, was particularly joyful about the fact, that the bomb will only kill Americans. If it is set in a crowded place, or, indeed, is triggered to go off by a detector independent of who is near it at the moment, then it sets the terrorists back to what they already have — an indiscriminate mass-killing device.
America has not placed that bomb... It happens almost daily in Baghdad today — people die in explosions intended to kill Americans...
An American aircraft (a pilotless drone) could hover above with sensitive electronics listening for these inquiry signal made by the bombs. The typical RFID chip is not very sensitive, so the signal of the inquiring device (in a card-reader or a bomb alike) would have to be fairly strong. The aircraft's sensors will pick it up and respond quickly — enough times for it to explode, even it is smart enough to not do it on the first time.
Several such aircrafts will find the bomb via triangulation — within minutes.
This kills the idea flat. It would have to do it often, or else it will never go off — the chances of it making the inquiry within the 10-20 seconds of an American passing by will to low otherwise.
Fooling their machine-executed algorithms is easy enough. Unfortunately, the enemy appears to trigger the explosions manually — such as by radio or cell-phone signal sent by a human...
It would be flat-out wonderful, if the enemy did this — especially, if they had placed a major production order for these, consuming Iran's full capacity for some time.
US would just explode all of them at once from the air by broadcasting the same radio waves, the RFID chips are designed to emit.
Unfortunately, the remaining enemies are much smarter than their sympathizers (flamebait my behind) — as one US general put it, all of the dumb ones are already dead.
Do you really hate lawyers even more than the government? Do you really prefer, say, Eliot Spitzer's political motivations over the lawyers' financial ones? I don't...
It is impossible to root out the greed. The best practical solution — one that America has been exploiting since its early days — is to pitch one greed (lawyers' in this case) against the other (unscrupulous companies'). Free markets is another example of such pitching. Politicians are yet another...
The compensatory damages would not amount to very much.
The idea of punitive damages is to, well, punish the guilty. It does not matter, where the money goes — the consumers benefit from the companies' not doing it again.
No, because one will first need to break into the legitimate user's own computer. Which is not even always online. It is possible, but harder than getting his (easy to guess) password.
You can have multiple keys too, even on the same client. People even use different ones for different tasks (full logins vs. `cvs commit' vs. cvs-readonly operations). And, as you mention, these can be password protected.
This is not an argument, ssh-keys are better than simple passwords. By how much is another story...
They rely on the slightly more secure method of ssh keys.
The point was, even the "nice" foreign policy like Canada's is no insurance against terrorism. Every country needs to be vigilant and propositions like "let's try to be friendly instead of defending ourselves" are stupid. Such a proposition was contained in the posting, that started this thread.
Are the first things I do in the morning. I'd LOVE it, if the kettle would send me an instant message, in addition to just quietly turning off.
Canada has successfully foiled a terrorist plot about a month ago. You should've seen it in the news. It included plans for major quantities of explosives and for the Prime Minister's decapitation.
Yes, you should stop doing the wrong thing — you should never have started, actually. But when the enemy tells you to do it, there are two issues:
This second one is of particular concern...
Nope. My point was of a much more narrow scope — enough of the anti-US hostility is due to our just and noble actions, which we are not going to stop doing. Thus the threats will remain, and fantasizing about "all of us just getting along" is foolish.
Terrorists, and other criminals are wrong. Saying: "WTC was attacked, it was America's own fault," — is no different from blaming a woman's attire for the rape. It is called "blaming the victim" and it is simply wrong — don't try to gloss over it with practical considerations.
You are dishonestly misreprenting what I said (also known as "strawman" fallacy). For the purely practical consideration I'm not comparing the amounts of terrorism attributable to our entire foreign policy vs. only the righteous parts of it (whichever they are). I'm comparing the costs of defenses against all threats vs. only those, that are aroused by our doing the just things. There is almost no difference in these costs — it is not like we have to defend additional airports because some of our past actions were unjust. Even if we were angels, we'd still have to defend them all...
'Been working so far — no attacks on the American soil since 2001... As for disabling a rapist, "Snow Crash" describes a nice, not-too-futuristic device...
These are not related. At all. Don't mix the subjects.
Whom are you trying to impress with this gobbledygook? What's wrong with my sense of morality?
Actually, there are very few people with nothing to lose. Certainly, the organizers of 9/11 were well educated and had illustrous careers before them. Bin Laden is/was a millionaire. They had their "stakes in the economic game". Your assertion is thus broken — don't cut yourself with pieces while looking for a replacement.
Now I can digress a bit. The stakes in the economic game are not given, they are earned. The idea of giving people things "volunterely" to keep them from robbing is sometimes put forward by the pragmatical (rather than the compassionate) proponents of welfare state. Like other kinds of appeasement, this is both morally wrong and practically ineffective (consider the crime-rates in the welfare-heavy neighborhoods) — even if the compassionate proponents' arguments have some merit.
I do accept this propaganda, and believe the tape is real. We have invaded neither of the two countries you list though — Bush-senior stopped on the Iraq's border, and Saudis allowed us in (they were part of the anti-Iraq coalition in 1990 — their very good reason was, they were next on Saddam's list). Oops #1.
That was not an invasion. Oops #2.There are no "genocidal campaigns against the Palestinians". If there were, Palestinians would not have existed now — decades after the "campaigns" are alleged to have begun. As things stand, their population is growing faster than Israel's own.
But this was not our invasion either. Oops #3.
None of these alleged misdeeds (oops-meter going crazy) were invasions. The question was: "Which country did we invade to explain 9/11, USS Cole, etc?" You failed to answer...
Thanks, very informative. But is not this a bigger threat to the surrounding area, than a thinly-targeted laser would be, even if it misses?
I doubt, it will ever miss, though — aiming it would be far easier, than aiming a missile — the algorithms are far easier to implement. The computers running them will also be better, because they would not be designed for flying inside a missile...
And even if it misses, that could be detected in an instant (before turning on full power) by some equivalent of the cops' "speed gun" (LIDAR or RADAR) to verify the distance to and the speed of the first item in the ray's path against those reported by the threat-detection system(s).
For additional safety (and efficiency), the system may use multiple lasers (from multiple points) with the energy of each one of them being insufficient for much damage. If one or two of them misfire — no harm, the intended target will still be fried by the rest, and nothing will be damaged anywhere outside the intended point of the rays' intersection. (Should I patent this?)
Mis-detecting the target (a false positive) will remain a concern of course, but so (or even worse) it is with "Patriot"'s mechanical aproach.
No doubt. It still seems, these new systems will be to "Patriot", what silicon chips are to vacuum tubes (which worked too, BTW).
I am not mixing up the two concepts — I even changed the subject to "Blaming the victim". The proponents of "changing ourselves" to attract less hostility are implicit (and often explicit — like yourself) about the hostility being our fault. They are profoundly wrong, but the meme is so strong, someone would always post it, whenever the talk is about weapons (even purely defensive ones) — and enough morons would call it "Insightful".
I don't want our foreign policy dictated by the (would be) enemies, and I don't want the women's clothing and behavior dictated by the (would be) rapists. If there is a way to disable the enemy's (military or rapist's) missile on approach, it should be widely deployed and used — there are no "buts" about it.
Yeah, "some instances" — like the biggest act of anti-US terror, that was the result of our "desecrating" the holy land of Saudi Arabia while protecting it (and Kuwait) from Saddam Hussein...
Right — if it is not Canada's fault, it is that of the US, is not it? Which country is not "associated" with the world's biggest economy today? North Korea?
Actually, it is the proponents of your idea — that it is easier/cheaper to appease the would-be enemies than to defend against them — who have failed to demonstrate that it would work.
Yes, now I am switching from the high-minded concept of culpability to the practicalities. Even you allow, that some (I say most) of the anti-American hostility is explained by US doing the right thing. I don't suppose you propose we stop doing those right things, which means, even according to you, we'll still have to worry about terrorism and invest into defensive installations like the one in TFA. The marginal extra cost of worrying about the additional hostility caused by our doing the wrong things is, uhh, non-existent or very small.
The concept of appeasing the enemy is thus defeated on both — the moral and the practical — sides. Again.
You are not answering the question: "Which country did we invade to explain 9/11, USS Cole, etc?" Stop inventing the strawmen, and answer straight.
Then — explain, whom did India invade to invite the recent Mumbai attack...
Sounds like they are intended for the same thing. Am I right?
They should be much better, though, because they'll be destroying with a ray, rather than a physical object. Much easier to aim, etc.
Their speed will also make them safer to use, because there'll be more time for the operators to examine the threat, and thus reduce incidents of "friendly fire".
If our morals and ethics prevent us from wiping out belligerent populations entirely, maybe, our technology will allow us to render their belligerence impotent.
It would be cheaper and easier if women stopped wearing mini-skirts and other suggestive clothing so that they'd arouse less people and make less rapists.
It does not work. There are plenty of rapes in the parts of the world, where women must cover themselves completely. Similarly, there are terror attacks (successful and foiled), against countries, whose foreign policies bully no one — like Canada or India.
"Isreal" is an anti-Israel slur.
WORRY. DETAILS IN LETTER
Or so the introduction appears. The Gucci-clad evil people our out to steal the Internet (and Christmas).
"Reshape the Internet" sounds much like the recent "Great Internet plug-pulling by Congress" and the not so recent "Vote or Die!" attempts at fear-mongering.
Something — a government agency — will be charged with enforcing the "net neutrality". That's one more bureaucrocy for the business to deal with.
Red tape tends to do that. In the market for Internet Service Provision, primarily.