It may be a combined effort by State and Treasury under 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Invoking the Act would provide the legal basis but many might be uncomfortable with declaring an "emergency" over a social app. However, any effort to persuade structural reform of a country that practices genocide would offset that discomfort, or should. Certainly the well documented history if IP theft would provide another specific basis for invoking the Act. However, the broader principle of economic reciprocity provides the argument, an argument that is easily understood by most. I suppose Treasury has a handy law, act or regulation regarding reciprocity in their pockets. On a biased personal level, if China refuses to allow its citizens free access to the global internet, I'd be rather pleased to forbid Chinese access and ownership of any and all US internet facing applications. Use any argument that you can come up with and I'd be ok with it.

I suspect Trump's thoughts on Uygurs is rather more sophisticated than you impute to him. Elnigar Iltebir, a Uighur-American scholar, was appointed by the White House to direct the National Security Council's China policy. Any participant in conversation regarding the administration's perception of the CCP treatment of Uygurs should know about her excellent appointment.

It's always a fascinating story when connected communities come up with an idea, especially when "connectedness" might provide an opportunity for transforming wishful thinking into currency, or anything else. But goddamn I'm impressed by work they've put into it and the energy of their unusual convictions.

No, in point of fact I don't. I have a $70 dollar data disabled flip phone. It replaced my egonomical disaster "John's cellphone." Nor do I carry the phone when I leave the house, unless for a long road trip. And I take nothing with me when I travel overseas. For photos, I use a digital camera. It's getting more difficult to maintain a small monitoring footprint and I believe and fear it will soon be impossible. The entire ecosystem is insecure and this is not the internet we dreamed we'd get.

I was getting it elsewhere, it's flawed but watchable. However, I realized that by paying, I help support the season which presumably provides incentive for continuing this and other similar productions. They have to get paid to show this shit, and somebody has to pay. I don't mind that.

If you argue that it's true, I'll posit that the simulation has been hacked by a 4chan universe of malign trollers and I for one am tired of it and by god it's time to get the firewall working again.

A long time ago on mainframes. IBM 3083's and VAX's. I was running analysis on some waveform data, took probably about 20 reels of mag tape. Fucking marine seismic data. I sent the big deck of cards down to the floor on a Friday. 1st thing Monday, I had to go the VP's office. He explained that Monday morning, the fucking job was still running. Turns out, instead of sampling the data every 4ms, I accidentally sampled it every 2ms. Back then, you didn't own your mainframes, IBM leased it to you. The VP explained that I cost the company anywhere from $40-60k. Nice guy actually. Texas engineer, cowboy boots and a suit. He politely asked me, "Son, you probably won't be making this mistake again, will you?" I stuck around for another couple of years. Goddamn it took an army to process data back then.

Armenians might object to a link that offends them. Turks might object to a different link. Politicians might object to links that (in their view) promotes piracy or terrorism. For god's sake let's not argue that because a link is offensive (to someone) it shouldn't be returned by a search. I worry about Google's undue influence like everyone else, but for the moment, the commercialization of search engines is a better model that politicizing them. Don't like the first return? Click on another link. It's the fucking internet. It's big.

Privacy issues aside, continued revelations like this ultimately damages US data businesses. They ("they") don't give a shit about a lot of things but usually they care about promoting and preserving US business opportunities. Why would Europe or anyone else subscribe to a US company's data offerings now? Or US citizens for that matter?

I made my 2 little girls, 5 and 7, compile their own code for their electric, driverless Barbie Car, and when I suggested they use systemd, they shouted at me that if they wanted a Windows box, they'd run a Windows box and then I mentioned that Poettering listens to the community they ran out into the highway screaming and then the social workers came and all I have now is this stupid Barbie Car. Poettering ruined my life and he'll ruin yours.

PulseAudio met an important need at the time, which was desktop adoption. It's a kludge but was a necessary one for "ordinary" users who increasingly wanted a machine that worked out of the box. It wasn't an issue for you, but "the minor trouble of setting up jackd", config files, and christ almighty, hardware compatibility lists were NOT flying with users who were attracted to linux but feared the tinkering. When the dust settled, and yeah, there was a lot of dust, it worked and the user base grew as a result. It's probably true that there were fewer considerations from the systemd crowd about the future of the back end and that was probably realistic and pragmatic - it doesn't make the back end any less stable. If it makes front end dev easier through a modular approach and accelerates user adoption, and that's where growth needs to occur, systemd will be a plus. I'm optimistic.

Either Netflix must connect via a provider that will have to pay a fee to the 1st Tier for their imbalanced peering relationship caused by the Netflix traffic, or they can directly connect with the providers that carry the content to the consumer. Either way, fees are incurred and yes, passed on to the consumer. This is an issue of "routing" and peering not an issue of neutrality. Incidentally, if they went with the former, the Tier 1 provider may incur fees themselves if they deliver more than they accept from whomever they are peering with. And that too would be passed on to the consumer via Netflix. One might suggest that anyone who believes the Tier 1 carriers are non-profit entities is uneducated. Netflix made the probably correct judgment that peering directly with Comcast would cost them less than whatever it would cost to pay the transit fee to the 1st Tier. Or would you rather the greater cost be passed onto you?

This is no threat to neutrality. This isn't even a neutrality issue. The carriers WERE neutral. Everyone else's traffic got the same shitty treatment, or good treatment if that was the case. But all traffic was treated equally and that is the goal of neutrality. However, peering relationships typically allow your traffic to pass if you allow my traffic to pass. But any carrier of Netflix is going to cause an imbalance and Netflix's PR wing decided to conflate the issue into one of neutrality, which is rather clever on their part. But you would be wrong to listen to them, and most of the media. Net neutrality is a laudable goal, but the core of this Netflix bru-ha-ha isn't a neutrality issue.