Much like "intellectual property", which is stupid on the face of it, I think he means that it amounts to a contradiction in terms. He is suggesting that you can't appropriate culture. I'm not sure I agree, but I understand what he means.
"So if I cover my ears when you talk, am I engaging in censorship?"
Well, that depends. If I am a millennial, then absolutely, you are engaging in censorship. Not listening to anything I have to say is oppression. Unless I'm in my safe space, in which case you aren't even allowed to be here.
While I agree that the existing "standard" is low, it's pretty arbitrary for the FCC to suddenly decide 25 meg is the standard.
How do you figure? Just because they didn't supply *you* personally with all of the data and/or research they may have used to arrive at that figure, it's arbitrary? You don't think maybe they looked around at, just for instance, the rest of the civilized world? You do know that the US is basically in the stone age of broadband, compared to other first world countries?
Wtf, dude. This is not complicated. Of course people can organize to try to enact peaceful political change. BUT. This should not give them the right or power to essentially bypass all campaign funding restrictions by pretending that donated money is coming from a corporation (which is a legal FICTION) versus from powerful rich people. If a person wants to contribute financially to a politician, then they can do so, personally and legally.
Re: Re: Re: Detecting video in HTTPS is probably impossible
My, aren't you clever. I didn't realize that https meant encrypted until you did all caps bolded text at me. Oh wait, no, I do know that, and I don't have as high an opinion of https "encryption" as I guess you do.
Also, the metadata of the packets is *not* encrypted.
Also, you're the moron if you really think all big ISPs are not doing DPI constantly.
Well, also if the slowing effect also did cause the provider to lower the bitrate, thereby providing a still smooth albeit lower resolution stream. What I've been reading is that the throttling is not having that desired effect.
Note that he didn't say they couldn't tell the difference, only that they rate the video as higher quality. And actually, that makes sense, because super hi-def video is quite ugly, except in some rare, outdoorsy/naturey kind of settings. Hi-def video shows us stuff we don't want to see, and for those of us used to low-def all of our lives, it brings to mind the uncanny valley.