oh come now, they're not that bad. Just because they have the same Thiel/Federalist society plan of global slavery for all minorities/nonwhites (and eventually all non-christian male whites) doesn't mean that Amazon is a bad company!
Dude pulled me over to give a written warning, and I was out of state. Wrapped on the fucking window with a gun when he pulled us over and scared the shit out of my family. Googled it and turns out there's a bunch of posts about this shit happening.
only pirates play that game. It's encrusted with so much drm that you can't even play it, even though it's a free game.
Clearly Republicants are all about small government. Isn't this actual/valid as trade secrets, as well?
yeah, this is somewhat my thoughts as well. People are petty and greedy, so willful misunderstanding of free speech/first amendment is what I expect at the top.
In theory...wouldn't the worst offenders getting away with everything raise the baseline for any marginally bad cop who's less stupid about getting caught, to actually get caught for anything, thus perpetuating the cycle? IE: bad cop with 10 settlements = everyone hates him terrible cop with a history of atrocities but not as stupid with 0 settlements = looks great on the record now. Sounds like this is how it already operates, they're presumed innocent until they suddenly rack up a million settlements.
This is super obvious why they would do that. Because if you compare that to every other country in the world we're basically dead last. Our cost per mb is hilarious vs other countries.
The fact that the focus is not on a symmetrical connection tells you that they are firmly in the mindset of comcast as a normal connection metric. Vs actual fiber being normally something like 100/100, which ISP's would cry about.
‘Frontier Secure Personal Security Bundle’ ($5.99 after ‘discount’), So: Full of Shit Predatory Super Bullshit fee is $5.99? wow.
please, they're apparently deaf. To facts, and to logic.
I think you missed the r in grifts
It's super simple and dead obvious why news agencies are scared to report on the inefficiencies:
they're afraid of the impact of pissing off the ISP's as the ISP's have continued to grow (and in many cases, control many media sources). So they do nothing because of course they won't.
it's like the qualified immunity logic.
Was there a letter somewhere that said they shouldn't have done that? whoops. meanwhile, patent trolls probably double their efforts after this
exactly, it's a clear distraction from addressing the problem at hand.
To me, this reads like a distinct possibility that the consortium is fearful of facebook/losing traffic to facebook.
This is a bit overblown. You throw a lot of stuff together that aren't necessarily linked. The problem at it's core, is people willingly or coincidentally, entirely missing what's happening in a situation and yet trying to regulate it anyway.
Thus, the problem isn't the regulation or a lack thereof, but the heavy-handed results.
Abdictating the regulation to "parent better" isn't really an answer to the situation either.
All of this basically ignores that Facebook could do better. It's not just that people need to do better themselves as well, and the one is not mutually exclusive of the other.
massively. They barely do anything to prevent sim swaps, so people with crypto are freaking out.
So you're saying the only evidence you will accept is that which supports your viewpoint? Why do you even post then?
Oh man! how will we survive! We've only had tv signals going through walls for an entire century now and cellphone signals going through walls for a few decades, and wifi for a few decades. Clearly this is all scary and too new for us! /facepalm
you're going to have to pursue actual science here, not quote a theory with no supporting information.