When I first saw this news it just about made me vomit. Anyone with even a tiny little bit of a brain should be horrified by this.
Think about what was said and WHO is was that said it. The CFO or Chief Financial Officer, so the guy in charge of company finance said "You could do some very interesting things” without net neutrality."
The CFO cares about one thing and that is money. If a company accountant talking about doing some "very interesting things" doesn't scare the shit out of you then I don't know what will.
I think the comparison to witch hunter is sadly accurate. If you look back at the history you find that those accused of being a witch had very little chance of proving they were not witches. Even worse was the fact that most of the "tests" would at the very least humiliate the accused, possibly even kill them.
So just like today, the accusation alone was enough to destroy your life and possibly kill you.
There are actually already apps to handle this situation. Solution I like was one that watched the sensors on the phone to detect a sudden acceleration, like when phone is snatched from you, and it locks the phone.
Pretty sure the idea was to stop those annoying friends that snatch your phone to read your latest text, but it would work just as well in this case.
What is this world coming to? We now have a country that literally wrote into their law "hurting national feelings". It makes me picture a little two year old having a fit because someone called them a mean name.
Is this really what world governments have turned into? Bunch of two year old babies throwing fits because they can't have things their way?
"that they use journalism as an excuse to further their own ends is."
Point is that First Amendment protects speech, period, full stop. There is no "unless your speaking to further your own ends". Your motives have NOTHING to do with the protection offered. Your allowed to say anything you want for any reason you want, so long as you are doing something in the very narrow list of exceptions. (Those being defamation and yelling fire etc.)
Well I think big issue is that the "punishment" for them braking the law is that tax payers get to pay the fine. Hard to convince police that they need to behave if you punish the tax payers instead on the police.
If every time I got caught speeding I would get a ticket saying someone else had to pay the fine, I would drive 100 mph everywhere I go.
I think what is needed is an edit option that keeps and hides the original. So that way you can edit and fix typos but people can still see what you changed vs the original. This means trolls can't change their ramblings, but typos can still be fixed.
WTF is nano piracy? They seem to be tossing that term around like it is in common use yet when I did a search for the term "nano piracy" I found this page and the Forbes page. Other than that the results were about iPod nano.
So wait, a lawmaker who fought for the right to film police went out and intentionally tried testing how well his efforts paid off? It really is sad that police can't seem to understand, being a pain in the ass for a police officer is NOT illegal. It might very well be highly annoying, but if you can't handle some minor harassment then you really shouldn't be a police officer.
It is kind of funny, I did the same thing. I bought a copy of minecraft just because I liked the developer.
I am also one of the crazy guys who gave over $100 to Double Fine to make their adventure game. I did not hesitate one bit just tossing money at them when they said who they were and what they wanted to make.
On the other hand, I have gone to buy a game before only to see that it came with some especially annoying DRM. I promptly canceled the order and pirated it instead. I'm not going to pay for a game and then be required to install spyware to play it.
I love how they like trying to pick and choose things to get what they want. They want the best of all worlds. I really think they should wake up and realize they are pushing for something that is going to hurt them really badly.
They want to be able to charge more for people that use more, as an example they point to power and water. The thing about that though is those are purely by usage, and your not charged by the "speed". The power company is not putting a throttle on how fast I can use power, the only limit is the amount the wire can take without melting.
So the way I see it. They can charge by the speed like they have been doing, or they can drop the stupid throttles and charge me by my usage. They can't have both.
While I really really don't want them to go to a strict by usage model because it will hit me hard. I also know it would almost kill the internet companies. Just think how many people have the internet and use maybe only 100 MB in a month....
They are of course free to lock out other OS options. The place this gets really questionable is if Microsoft made a deal with them to place that lock. If so you suddenly are opening up some bigger questions about Microsoft abusing it's power to hurt competition. They kind of got in trouble for this exact kind of thing a few years ago........
Under this logic all speech coming from either Hillary or Trump should instantly be blocked. For that matter they should both just be locked up.
I can't think of anything that could cause more radicalization than the steady stream of stupidity that flows from those two. Some of the bombers are probably just happy knowing that by blowing themselves up they wont have to listen to any more news clips about those two bozos.
I have been thinking for the last several years that the internet is due for a major change. The mass spying going on around the world made me think that. Then also seeing how countries love turning off the internet to try and deal with revolts only makes that feeling stronger.
People need a communication platform that is out of the reach of governments.
"Of course i can't wait for the feds to identify who is doing this and charge them accordingly."
That makes two really big assumptions. 1) That the feds don't already know who is doing it and 2) that is isn't the feds themselves doing it.
I would say that NSA is pretty high on the list of possible suspects. The others on the list like China and Russia... Well, we are not very likely to call them on it. Even if we do call them on it, it is not like we really have the power to stop them.
That would be why I was saying there should be some options for someone to get their car back. Those options should be at least slightly painful, but nowhere near impossible. Such as having to go and swear in court you will not loan the car to the offender in the future. Then if car is taken a second time...