"What's that Mr. Jones, you don't want to backdoor your software for us? Okay, well, we figured there was no harm in asking. By the way, weren't there some allegations of sexual harassment at your company? Are you certain your taxes are above board? And you look a little monopolistic to me. Maybe we should cancel your government contracts, have you audited by the IRS, have the FTC start an investigation, tie you up in court for a few years, and give you massively bad press."
The police arrests that inevitably follow easily involve the use of force, and the killing of a few family pets. Soon, the FCC and "net neutrality" will provide an additional lever to force ISPs to comply with government demands for access and espionage.
So we know of all these tools the US has had at its disposal, but other than maybe Stuxnet and a few others, it's hard to pinpoint real world fallout from their use.
Oh, deary, you think that because US press doesn't talk much about US hacking it doesn't happen?Hate to break it to you, but our European "allies" assume that everything that comes from the US is infested by US government espionage, foremost Google and Facebook.
You can't swing a dead cat in this world without hitting a server that "patriotic Russian hackers" have compromised.
It's idiotic to blame all hacking by Russians on the Russian government. Many of those people really just do it for personal profit.
You're citing the wrong part of the tax code. Taxation has to be uniform, this is not.
all taxes shall be uniform upon the same class of property within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax and shall be levied and collected for public purposes only
You'd be hard pressed to find a bigger enemy of net neutrality than the fine folks at AT&T. The company has a history of all manner of anti-competitive assaults on the open and competitive internet
Well, so then it shouldn't be surprising that they want ISPs to come under the heavy-handed supervision of the FCC.
You don't seriously think that a company that has been manipulating Congress for a century isn't fully capable of using any net neutrality legislation or FCC market interference to its advantage?
I assume you're a guy. How often do you tell another guy that he's "looking nice"?
Every now and then. And like with women, it's completely non-sexual. Women do it too.
Now try this one: how often do men run around in a professional context with their chests visible, or with codpieces, or in tight short pants, or with makeup? That sort of thing seems to be acceptable for women, but it is not acceptable for men. Double standard?
They're not monopolies? What are viable alternatives to search? What are viable social networking alternatives? If you don't think those two companies are monopolies, you're fucking retarded. But hey, they're not alone -- AT&T, Verizon?
Congratulations, that's the result of decades of policies and political pressures aimed at net neutrality: when you force ISPs to be simple pipes and encourage business models based on advertising instead of subscriptions, that's the kind of winner-take-all market you end up with. As usual, government regulations first break a market, and then people call for more government action to break it even further.
Washington Post: privately purchased by Bezos, one of the richest people in the world, politically active and advancing his political views and preferences through the media. Bezos also owns a company that completely dominates online shopping.
NYT: top shareholder is Carlos Slim, a Mexican billionaire with strong opinions on US politics, a major beneficiary from illegal immigration to the US, and a major Clinton supporter.
Bezos, WaPo, and the NYT symbolize what's wrong in American politics according to Democrats and progressives: foreign collusion, corruption of the political process by billionaires, and crony capitalism. And it's Democrats themselves that support these pricks.
Just 100 companies have been the source of more than 70% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions since 1988,
If you look at it that way, just 100 companies have then probably been the source of more than 70% of the world's wealth, reduction in hunger, reduction in poverty, etc. It's then because of those 100 companies that you don't freeze, starve, or die of horrible diseases. So, be grateful that those 100 companies exist.
Most bike sharing programs or companies in Europe or the US are publicly funded or publicly subsidized. I'm not aware of any that have made a substantial profit. In China, they have attracted lots of investments, but the financials are at best unclear. So, care to give examples of "successful bike sharing startups"?
The phone ditches the traditional analog-to-digital converter, which turns your voice into data, in favor of a system that uses the vibrations from a microphone or speaker to perform the same task. An antenna then converts that motion into radio signals in such a way that very little power is consumed. However, reminiscent of a walkie-talkie, you have to press a button to switch between transmissions and listening modes with the phone.
So, in different words, they have built a very-low-powered analog transmitter and receiver... something people have been doing for about half a century.
Congratulations on the completion of a high school science project! I'm afraid it's still just an also-ran, however.
I didn't make an argument, I pointed out a fact. You turned that into your favorite, a false dichotomy.
Do you admit that ISPs are special interest?
Which part of Pointing out that Google and Facebook are special interests doesn't mean that there aren't many others; it's not a "dichotomy". was too hard for you to grasp?
Burden of proof fallacy. The burden of proof lies on the person who made the claim.
I can't tell whether you are a really clever troll or just an incredibly stupid moron, but I guess is it's the latter.
Ad hominem and false dichotomy fallacy. You are attacking Google and Netflix's point because they are "special interests" (again while ignoring ISPs are the same). Net neutrality benefits them. No one said they didn't. So what? Net neutrality benefits me. I could be a serial murderer or the lowest of human being, a Philadelphia Eagles fan.
So, you confirm it then: Google, Facebook, and wealthy nerds are special interests with lots of money and the power to corrupt the political process in order to push through reuglations that benefit them. Great we got that out of the way.
It doesn't provide any reasoning to the strength of argument of Net Neutrality.
That's not surprising since we weren't talking about the economics of Net Neutrality per se, but the political machinations around it.
Assertion without evidence fallacy. Please provide proof of this since you made the claim, you must provide the evidence.
Actually, legally and politically, the burden of proof is on people who want to create regulations to restrict free markets: you need to provide clear evidence that the benefits of the proposed regulation outweigh the costs. Feel free to provide such evidence.
Once again, you show that you don't know how routing works
Once again, you show that you know nothing about either how the Internet works or about economics.
You may like businesses double-dipping, but I don't. I'd prefer not to have the government step in, but if that's the only way to stop the double-dipping, then that's what we need.
"I wake up in cold sweats every so often thinking, what did we bring to the world?" Fadell said. "Did we really bring a nuclear bomb with information that can -- like we see with fake news -- blow up people's brains and reprogram them?
Don't worry about it, your success was mostly based on various ripoffs (Windows CE, iPod) of work pioneered by others. Heck, even the iPod design didn't survive. In different words, the mobile computing world would look pretty much the same, with or without anything you ever did.
Your assertion is a false dichotomy in that only Google and Facebook gives me unwanted content and my ISP does not
Pointing out that Google and Facebook are special interests doesn't mean that there aren't many others; it's not a "dichotomy".
No, your argument is that we shouldn't listen to Google and Facebook because Net Neutrality is for their benefit
No, my argument is that "net neutrality" is special interests lobbying and attracts crony capitalists like a rotting carcass attracts flies. Who benefits from net neutrality? Google. Netflix. Facebook. Wealthy nerds. Who loses with net neutrality? Low income people, low volume users, many startups.
Explain to me, please, how I can vote with my wallet when the only two ISPs in my area are two of the ISPs who lobbied hard against NN?
Your ISPs are already happy to sell you unrestricted lines for $200/month; you can run businesses, servers, bittorrent, and anything else you want on those.
What you want instead is that I, my parents, and everybody else cough up $50/month in order to subsidize your $50/month unrestricted usage.
Wow, you really have no idea how the internet works.
Be that as it may, you obviously have an excellent idea of how it works, which is why you are lobbying for others to be forced to subsidize you.
I don't understand this statement. End users pay ISPs for their pipes. Google and Facebook pay their ISP for their pipes. End user ISP in the middle wants to charge Google and Facebook even though every one has already paid.
People and companies don't pay for "pipes" they pay for traffic volume. Traffic consists of wanted and unwanted content.
To use your simplified model, Google and Facebook pay for wanted and unwanted content going to their ISP. You then pay for wanted and unwanted content going from your ISP to your home. Net neutrality makes that model law.
Also my ISP is also my cable company. What's to stop them from making rentals from iTunes, Amazon, Vudu, etc ridiculously slow and their Pay-Per-View strangely fast? Net Neutrality at the moment.
There is no net neutrality right now, so that's delusional. What is stopping your ISP from delivering poor service is that you wouldn't be interested in buying poor service from them.
Please explain this statement. When I go to Netflix, I want to see Netflix. However, as a user of Google, Facebook, Amazon, whatever, I don't want my ISP opposing my benefits for more money because I already paid them.
That is another problem with net neutrality: you want your streaming habits to be subsidized by other users. That's why vocal nerds like you advocate net neutrality, while low volume Internet users like my parents end up paying the same f*cking charges as you. That's net neutrality for you.
Of course Facebook and Google are doing it for their benefit. I suppose you do things against your benefit?
They are pretending that they are doing it for the benefit of Internet users and small startups, when their actual motivation is to screw over users by having them pay for delivering unwanted ads and to screw over startups by killing a lot of business models and perpetuating an ad-based business model.
Slashdot Mirror
The way this works in the US is:
The police arrests that inevitably follow easily involve the use of force, and the killing of a few family pets. Soon, the FCC and "net neutrality" will provide an additional lever to force ISPs to comply with government demands for access and espionage.
Oh, deary, you think that because US press doesn't talk much about US hacking it doesn't happen?Hate to break it to you, but our European "allies" assume that everything that comes from the US is infested by US government espionage, foremost Google and Facebook.
It's idiotic to blame all hacking by Russians on the Russian government. Many of those people really just do it for personal profit.
Ditto for Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Apple, and all the other American companies vis-a-vis the US government.
Or German companies vis-a-vis the German government.
Or British companies vis-a-vis the British government.
Or French companies vis-a-vis the French government.
Welcome to reality.
Will they get sacrificed or promoted to a queen?
You're citing the wrong part of the tax code. Taxation has to be uniform, this is not.
You non-Americans never stop to amaze me with your ignorance, and self-righteousness.
Clutch your pearls! Harder!
Well, so then it shouldn't be surprising that they want ISPs to come under the heavy-handed supervision of the FCC.
You don't seriously think that a company that has been manipulating Congress for a century isn't fully capable of using any net neutrality legislation or FCC market interference to its advantage?
Every now and then. And like with women, it's completely non-sexual. Women do it too.
Now try this one: how often do men run around in a professional context with their chests visible, or with codpieces, or in tight short pants, or with makeup? That sort of thing seems to be acceptable for women, but it is not acceptable for men. Double standard?
I have no idea what you're even trying to say. You still don't seem to understand that "private ownership" isn't the same as "individual ownership".
I'll let you know right now: small government and privatization are strongly associated with economic growth and competitiveness.
Congratulations, that's the result of decades of policies and political pressures aimed at net neutrality: when you force ISPs to be simple pipes and encourage business models based on advertising instead of subscriptions, that's the kind of winner-take-all market you end up with. As usual, government regulations first break a market, and then people call for more government action to break it even further.
Washington Post: privately purchased by Bezos, one of the richest people in the world, politically active and advancing his political views and preferences through the media. Bezos also owns a company that completely dominates online shopping.
NYT: top shareholder is Carlos Slim, a Mexican billionaire with strong opinions on US politics, a major beneficiary from illegal immigration to the US, and a major Clinton supporter.
Bezos, WaPo, and the NYT symbolize what's wrong in American politics according to Democrats and progressives: foreign collusion, corruption of the political process by billionaires, and crony capitalism. And it's Democrats themselves that support these pricks.
If you look at it that way, just 100 companies have then probably been the source of more than 70% of the world's wealth, reduction in hunger, reduction in poverty, etc. It's then because of those 100 companies that you don't freeze, starve, or die of horrible diseases. So, be grateful that those 100 companies exist.
From TFA:
"With bike-sharing companies like Mobike becoming incredibly successful"
But they don't seem to be making any profit right now.
Most bike sharing programs or companies in Europe or the US are publicly funded or publicly subsidized. I'm not aware of any that have made a substantial profit. In China, they have attracted lots of investments, but the financials are at best unclear. So, care to give examples of "successful bike sharing startups"?
Nonverbal or non-voice communication? We already have that.
The ability to look into people's heads against their wishes? That's not telepathy, that's Orwellian.
So, in different words, they have built a very-low-powered analog transmitter and receiver... something people have been doing for about half a century.
Congratulations on the completion of a high school science project! I'm afraid it's still just an also-ran, however.
I didn't make an argument, I pointed out a fact. You turned that into your favorite, a false dichotomy.
Which part of Pointing out that Google and Facebook are special interests doesn't mean that there aren't many others; it's not a "dichotomy". was too hard for you to grasp?
I can't tell whether you are a really clever troll or just an incredibly stupid moron, but I guess is it's the latter.
So, you confirm it then: Google, Facebook, and wealthy nerds are special interests with lots of money and the power to corrupt the political process in order to push through reuglations that benefit them. Great we got that out of the way.
That's not surprising since we weren't talking about the economics of Net Neutrality per se, but the political machinations around it.
Actually, legally and politically, the burden of proof is on people who want to create regulations to restrict free markets: you need to provide clear evidence that the benefits of the proposed regulation outweigh the costs. Feel free to provide such evidence.
Once again, you show that you know nothing about either how the Internet works or about economics.
Yours is the rallying cry of a crony capitalist.
You don't say!
That's what I was making fun of.
You really are a bit dense, aren't you?
Don't worry about it, your success was mostly based on various ripoffs (Windows CE, iPod) of work pioneered by others. Heck, even the iPod design didn't survive. In different words, the mobile computing world would look pretty much the same, with or without anything you ever did.
Pointing out that Google and Facebook are special interests doesn't mean that there aren't many others; it's not a "dichotomy".
No, my argument is that "net neutrality" is special interests lobbying and attracts crony capitalists like a rotting carcass attracts flies. Who benefits from net neutrality? Google. Netflix. Facebook. Wealthy nerds. Who loses with net neutrality? Low income people, low volume users, many startups.
Your ISPs are already happy to sell you unrestricted lines for $200/month; you can run businesses, servers, bittorrent, and anything else you want on those.
What you want instead is that I, my parents, and everybody else cough up $50/month in order to subsidize your $50/month unrestricted usage.
Be that as it may, you obviously have an excellent idea of how it works, which is why you are lobbying for others to be forced to subsidize you.
People and companies don't pay for "pipes" they pay for traffic volume. Traffic consists of wanted and unwanted content.
To use your simplified model, Google and Facebook pay for wanted and unwanted content going to their ISP. You then pay for wanted and unwanted content going from your ISP to your home. Net neutrality makes that model law.
There is no net neutrality right now, so that's delusional. What is stopping your ISP from delivering poor service is that you wouldn't be interested in buying poor service from them.
That is another problem with net neutrality: you want your streaming habits to be subsidized by other users. That's why vocal nerds like you advocate net neutrality, while low volume Internet users like my parents end up paying the same f*cking charges as you. That's net neutrality for you.
They are pretending that they are doing it for the benefit of Internet users and small startups, when their actual motivation is to screw over users by having them pay for delivering unwanted ads and to screw over startups by killing a lot of business models and perpetuating an ad-based business model.