Your battery is a consumable, just like the tires on your car. Your battery wears out, and so does the tread on your tire. Once the tread gets worn out enough, you can have a blow-out at any time. Apple is simply reducing the maximum output of the engine, to reduce the chances of a blow-out, in the same way as it is reducing the maximum output of the CPU to reduce the chances of a sudden battery failure.
Plus there are anti-trust issues if a consumer can only choose from say 2 ISP's: consumers are then pretty much stuck with forced bundling and other typical oligopoly evils.
If there were say 7 or more actual choices, then the issues surrounding NN would probably take care of themselves via market forces. But the "last mile" problem mucks up entry into the field. It's economically and environmentally wasteful to have 7 different duplicate networks in each town.
One solution would be to have a gov't or public utility wire "the last mile", and ANY provider could then hook up into the regional "nodes", and point your single connection to their network. That way providers don't need to lay gillion wires to get into the ISP and content business.
On this, we totally and unanimously agree, just check my other posts regarding NN here on/., where I effectively advocate the same.
It is a constitutional issue. The 4th amendment protects against unreasonable seizures. Net Neutrality rules effectively seize operational control of privately owned computer networks. The government did not pay for the capex and does not pay for the opex, thus shall not have any voice in dictating how these networks shall be operated.
the vast majority of humanity prefer to live in societies where the goods we purchase are regulated.
You don't buy a good, you buy a service. That's a fundamental difference: if you buy a good, you spent your money and are stuck with that decision for the rest of your life unless you can find a good reason to return it, and the merchant accepts the return.
As for internet broadband services, you are effectively leasing bandwidth on a network owned and operated by someone else. If you are no longer happy with the value of the service you receive in exchange for your hard-earned dollars, euros, rupees or rubles, you have the option to cancel your service and stop spending.
Twenty years ago you happily paid $60 for 2 megabit downstream bandwidth. Today 2 mbps is not even considered broadband and you would be complaining if you would get only 2 mbps on your iphone in the middle of a large city. However, the same $60 vacuum cleaner you bought 20 years ago might still work today. Ask your grandma.
I guess to you hate speech is anything that goes against your personal preferences.
Trump is an idiot but his detractors are even more offensive. Trump won the Presidency because a lot of people did not want Clinton's supporters to win. How bad does someone have to lose to Trump? Just look at all of his faults and explain how someone with more money, more political savvy, and more political experience loses to him? There is a segment of society that Clinton and her supporters underestimated. The insults and holier than thou attitude used against any non-Clinton supporter helped elect Trump. I voted against the rioters in Berkley and their kindred spirits across the country. I voted against those who want to sanitize the past and demanding reparations of some type for acts that took place hundreds of years ago. Clinton didn't turn me off it was her supporters who guided my vote.
This. Exactly this. This is what many moderate people, moderate left and moderate right, don't seem to understand. Because both the far left and the far right are too busy screaming at each other and calling names, the moderate middle loses out. And as a result, we have a polarized electorate hating the other side. This year, many Thanksgiving dinners were ruined because of "political debate" between Trump voters and anti-Trump people.
The whining of the far-left and the whining of the far-right need to stop. We don't need 200 different genders, and we don't need to buy an AR-15 with the same ease as a pack of laundry detergent. We don't need to force small business bakeries to bake cakes for gay couples in the same way as we don't need to ban the morning after pill.
It's ridiculous. Live and let live, don't force your morals, religious beliefs or political opinions through someone else's throat. Is that really so fucking difficult?
The law is too often used as a refuge for the unscrupulous.
Yes, you are totally right there. But this does not apply in the case of Facebook.
If you don't want Facebook to delete your content, don't use Facebook. If you feel that Facebook is an evil corporation, don't use Facebook. Don't visit website that use Facebook's services. Or block all of Facebook in your favorite adblocker. It's literally that simple.
Facebook is evil for censoring. So are all of the freedom-hating assholes who want them to.
Facebook is operating a private platform funded by private money. Their platform, their rules. If you don't like it, go somewhere else. They can censor whatever the want, just as you can censor whatever you want in your house. If you don't like what your friends say in your house, you can ask them to leave. If Facebook doesn't like what you say on their platform, they can remove it and ask you to leave. Simple.
Which does not mean that I agree with them. But they are not doing anything wrong, legally or morally.
Repeal of the NN means that they actually donâ(TM)t need to invest more
Wrong. The repeal of NN means that Comcast actually get to decide how they operate the network they just expanded with Comcast's $50,000,000,000 dollars, rather than having the government decide how Comcast's $50,000,000,000 dollars investment should be operated.
The government did not give Comcast $50,000,000,000 dollars, so the government does not get to say how those $50,000,000,000 dollars should be spent, or how Comcast offer services on their $50,000,000,000 dollars investment.
If an ISP cuts off your internet access because you cannot help yourself stop stealing digital content
Downloading digital content is not necessarily illegal. It's the uploading part that makes it illegal.
Furthermore, not all digital content is copyright protected. And even if it were, an ISP is not a judge and cannot determine whether or not their user is breaking the law. And an ISP is not the police either.
If my ISP would cut off my internet, they would find themselves on the losing end of a breach of contract lawsuit really, really quick.
When I bought my first iPhone, in December 2014, they were smart. I still use my iPhone 6, which I bought after I got sick and tired of my Samsung S3, which I bought because the previous Android sucked too.
Despite not wanting to jump on the Fanboy bandwagon, I reluctantly admitted that I really liked the iPhone. Why? Because the damned thing just works.
Now, three years later, I had to replace the battery because my phone would no longer work for more than ~8 hours a day. I went to the nearest mall with one of those "we fix your phone" stands, bought the battery and replaced it myself. Voila, as good as new. Replacing the battery is not difficult. You just need good eyes and the right tools.
I hate to say it, but in my experience, the iPhone 6 is a Good Product, so the engineers did well.
I haven't indeed. But I told him that a 6 year old can get them working, so I would expect the same from someone who migrated to the U.S. under a specialized knowledge visa claiming to be a techie.
I know what you want people to answer... "The government, it's a free hand-out, socialist state", etc.
Yes, I wanted to hear "The government", but not "it's a socialist state". While it's true that the UK may be a socialist state, I have no problems with that.
I would have problems with this if the government would decide that something is a basic right, but then forces someone else to pay for it.
No, you don't.
Your local monopoly awarded by some politician does not give you the right to say that I can no longer stream video unless I pay another $10 per month just because you own the router.
Right, so you are going to tell me how I can configure my router that I pay for on my network that I pay for.
That's now how private property works. My property, my rules.
I pay for an internet connection, and that's what I expect.
If you don't get what you pay for, you are free to sue for breach of contract. Everything after that is just contract law.
Especially if there is little to no alternative beside you. If by voting with my feet you mean to sell my house and move to another neighborhood just so you can acquire the ISP there and impose your will on me again, well that doesn't fly for me. Your free market is an illusion.
And this is the part that I agree with. And this is the real problem that needs to be fixed. Your obsession with "net neutrality" makes you look away from the real problem: lack of competition in the consumer broadband market.
If you were as smart as you seem to think you are, you would realize that we're not limited to a single legislation, and could have NN and break up local monopolies also.
Yes, we can. But I have a fundamental issue with NN: it infringes on the property rights of the network owner. If I build a network, small or large, and I pay for the routers, switches, transmission and operations, I should be able to do whatever I want with it. My network, my rules. And my customers can vote with their feet.
Which if course, is the part where the breakup of monopolies comes in.
If only people would stop electing terrible legislators.
That, we totally agree on. Just look at our Supreme Leader (and yes, I know he is the head of the EB, but still signs laws so he is also part of the LB).
Bullshit. NN does absofuckinglutely nothing to address the real issue, namely local monopolies. You want to solve the problem, get legislation passed that eliminates anti-last mile legislation, blocks municipal exclusivity agreements, and forces prompt(within 72 hours) shifting of cable on public poles so that competitors can install theirs.
Finally, someone else who understands. I've been preaching this since the beginning of this stupid NN discussion, but always get downmodded. My kingdom for modpoints. Actually no, my kingdom for more brains into the brainless morons who shill for the content providers.
What makes you think any Russian citizen is involved? They could be a victim as much as the companies who owned the hijacked subnets.
All we know at this time is that an AS number assigned to a Russian entity was used. Anyone can configure that on their router, just as I can send a threatening letter with your return address on the envelope.
Slashdot Mirror
It was Thiel's 2016 lawsuit which bankrupted the site,
Now this is fake news. It was not Thiel's lawsuit. It was Terry Bollea's lawsuit.
/. is going down.
The quality of editing on
And if you have the time to read this, grab some popcorn first.
And here is the actual document, so you don't have to scroll thru the Gizmodo clickbait. https://www.documentcloud.org/...
You could even add a car analogy.
Here is your car analogy
Your battery is a consumable, just like the tires on your car. Your battery wears out, and so does the tread on your tire. Once the tread gets worn out enough, you can have a blow-out at any time. Apple is simply reducing the maximum output of the engine, to reduce the chances of a blow-out, in the same way as it is reducing the maximum output of the CPU to reduce the chances of a sudden battery failure.
Plus there are anti-trust issues if a consumer can only choose from say 2 ISP's: consumers are then pretty much stuck with forced bundling and other typical oligopoly evils.
If there were say 7 or more actual choices, then the issues surrounding NN would probably take care of themselves via market forces. But the "last mile" problem mucks up entry into the field. It's economically and environmentally wasteful to have 7 different duplicate networks in each town.
One solution would be to have a gov't or public utility wire "the last mile", and ANY provider could then hook up into the regional "nodes", and point your single connection to their network. That way providers don't need to lay gillion wires to get into the ISP and content business.
On this, we totally and unanimously agree, just check my other posts regarding NN here on /., where I effectively advocate the same.
My point is: NN is bad, competition is good.
It may end up a Constitutional issue.
It is a constitutional issue. The 4th amendment protects against unreasonable seizures. Net Neutrality rules effectively seize operational control of privately owned computer networks. The government did not pay for the capex and does not pay for the opex, thus shall not have any voice in dictating how these networks shall be operated.
the vast majority of humanity prefer to live in societies where the goods we purchase are regulated.
You don't buy a good, you buy a service. That's a fundamental difference: if you buy a good, you spent your money and are stuck with that decision for the rest of your life unless you can find a good reason to return it, and the merchant accepts the return.
As for internet broadband services, you are effectively leasing bandwidth on a network owned and operated by someone else. If you are no longer happy with the value of the service you receive in exchange for your hard-earned dollars, euros, rupees or rubles, you have the option to cancel your service and stop spending.
Twenty years ago you happily paid $60 for 2 megabit downstream bandwidth. Today 2 mbps is not even considered broadband and you would be complaining if you would get only 2 mbps on your iphone in the middle of a large city. However, the same $60 vacuum cleaner you bought 20 years ago might still work today. Ask your grandma.
I guess to you hate speech is anything that goes against your personal preferences.
Trump is an idiot but his detractors are even more offensive. Trump won the Presidency because a lot of people did not want Clinton's supporters to win. How bad does someone have to lose to Trump? Just look at all of his faults and explain how someone with more money, more political savvy, and more political experience loses to him? There is a segment of society that Clinton and her supporters underestimated. The insults and holier than thou attitude used against any non-Clinton supporter helped elect Trump. I voted against the rioters in Berkley and their kindred spirits across the country. I voted against those who want to sanitize the past and demanding reparations of some type for acts that took place hundreds of years ago. Clinton didn't turn me off it was her supporters who guided my vote.
This. Exactly this. This is what many moderate people, moderate left and moderate right, don't seem to understand. Because both the far left and the far right are too busy screaming at each other and calling names, the moderate middle loses out. And as a result, we have a polarized electorate hating the other side. This year, many Thanksgiving dinners were ruined because of "political debate" between Trump voters and anti-Trump people.
The whining of the far-left and the whining of the far-right need to stop. We don't need 200 different genders, and we don't need to buy an AR-15 with the same ease as a pack of laundry detergent. We don't need to force small business bakeries to bake cakes for gay couples in the same way as we don't need to ban the morning after pill.
It's ridiculous. Live and let live, don't force your morals, religious beliefs or political opinions through someone else's throat. Is that really so fucking difficult?
The law is too often used as a refuge for the unscrupulous.
Yes, you are totally right there. But this does not apply in the case of Facebook.
If you don't want Facebook to delete your content, don't use Facebook. If you feel that Facebook is an evil corporation, don't use Facebook. Don't visit website that use Facebook's services. Or block all of Facebook in your favorite adblocker. It's literally that simple.
you don't get to dictate what is moral for other people. By my measure, morally they are being evil.
You are right, your moral compass may be different than mine. I stand corrected.
And while FB as a company might be evil, legally they still do have the right to delete whatever they want.
Facebook is evil for censoring. So are all of the freedom-hating assholes who want them to.
Facebook is operating a private platform funded by private money. Their platform, their rules. If you don't like it, go somewhere else. They can censor whatever the want, just as you can censor whatever you want in your house. If you don't like what your friends say in your house, you can ask them to leave. If Facebook doesn't like what you say on their platform, they can remove it and ask you to leave. Simple.
Which does not mean that I agree with them. But they are not doing anything wrong, legally or morally.
Repeal of the NN means that they actually donâ(TM)t need to invest more
Wrong. The repeal of NN means that Comcast actually get to decide how they operate the network they just expanded with Comcast's $50,000,000,000 dollars, rather than having the government decide how Comcast's $50,000,000,000 dollars investment should be operated.
The government did not give Comcast $50,000,000,000 dollars, so the government does not get to say how those $50,000,000,000 dollars should be spent, or how Comcast offer services on their $50,000,000,000 dollars investment.
If an ISP cuts off your internet access because you cannot help yourself stop stealing digital content
Downloading digital content is not necessarily illegal. It's the uploading part that makes it illegal.
Furthermore, not all digital content is copyright protected. And even if it were, an ISP is not a judge and cannot determine whether or not their user is breaking the law. And an ISP is not the police either.
If my ISP would cut off my internet, they would find themselves on the losing end of a breach of contract lawsuit really, really quick.
I'm not sure how smart the engineers are
When I bought my first iPhone, in December 2014, they were smart. I still use my iPhone 6, which I bought after I got sick and tired of my Samsung S3, which I bought because the previous Android sucked too.
Despite not wanting to jump on the Fanboy bandwagon, I reluctantly admitted that I really liked the iPhone. Why? Because the damned thing just works.
Now, three years later, I had to replace the battery because my phone would no longer work for more than ~8 hours a day. I went to the nearest mall with one of those "we fix your phone" stands, bought the battery and replaced it myself. Voila, as good as new. Replacing the battery is not difficult. You just need good eyes and the right tools.
I hate to say it, but in my experience, the iPhone 6 is a Good Product, so the engineers did well.
You haven't contradicted what he said.
I haven't indeed. But I told him that a 6 year old can get them working, so I would expect the same from someone who migrated to the U.S. under a specialized knowledge visa claiming to be a techie.
Really? Was there an advantage to those that I'm missing compared to modern solutions?
Job security.
I tried running Let's Encrypt's scripts and they crashed.
Then you're not so 'techy' as your name implies. My 6 year old is capable of running them on her VM.
I know what you want people to answer... "The government, it's a free hand-out, socialist state", etc.
Yes, I wanted to hear "The government", but not "it's a socialist state". While it's true that the UK may be a socialist state, I have no problems with that.
I would have problems with this if the government would decide that something is a basic right, but then forces someone else to pay for it.
What they are saying is if you elect to purchase access to those universally available services, there will be a minimum standard available to you.
Who is going to pay for the infrastructure?
No, you don't. Your local monopoly awarded by some politician does not give you the right to say that I can no longer stream video unless I pay another $10 per month just because you own the router.
Right, so you are going to tell me how I can configure my router that I pay for on my network that I pay for.
That's now how private property works. My property, my rules.
I pay for an internet connection, and that's what I expect.
If you don't get what you pay for, you are free to sue for breach of contract. Everything after that is just contract law.
Especially if there is little to no alternative beside you. If by voting with my feet you mean to sell my house and move to another neighborhood just so you can acquire the ISP there and impose your will on me again, well that doesn't fly for me. Your free market is an illusion.
And this is the part that I agree with. And this is the real problem that needs to be fixed. Your obsession with "net neutrality" makes you look away from the real problem: lack of competition in the consumer broadband market.
Yeah, spoiler alert: it's about the Great Police State formerly part of the EUSSR...
If you were as smart as you seem to think you are, you would realize that we're not limited to a single legislation, and could have NN and break up local monopolies also.
Yes, we can. But I have a fundamental issue with NN: it infringes on the property rights of the network owner. If I build a network, small or large, and I pay for the routers, switches, transmission and operations, I should be able to do whatever I want with it. My network, my rules. And my customers can vote with their feet.
Which if course, is the part where the breakup of monopolies comes in.
If only people would stop electing terrible legislators.
That, we totally agree on. Just look at our Supreme Leader (and yes, I know he is the head of the EB, but still signs laws so he is also part of the LB).
Bullshit. NN does absofuckinglutely nothing to address the real issue, namely local monopolies. You want to solve the problem, get legislation passed that eliminates anti-last mile legislation, blocks municipal exclusivity agreements, and forces prompt(within 72 hours) shifting of cable on public poles so that competitors can install theirs.
Finally, someone else who understands. I've been preaching this since the beginning of this stupid NN discussion, but always get downmodded. My kingdom for modpoints. Actually no, my kingdom for more brains into the brainless morons who shill for the content providers.
Can we nuke Russia already for these high crimes?
What makes you think any Russian citizen is involved? They could be a victim as much as the companies who owned the hijacked subnets.
All we know at this time is that an AS number assigned to a Russian entity was used. Anyone can configure that on their router, just as I can send a threatening letter with your return address on the envelope.
... and also think of ...
The amount of reasons some people will find to ban things they "don't like".