Stuxnet

I reason thus: The country is based on the premise that you have inalienable rights - to bear arms, marry who you want, say what you want, to privacy, to remain silent, to make a living, etc. Neither the Federal nor a State government can abrogate these rights, except to prevent physical harm to others. A government may enact regulations, which are defined in the classical, correct sense of managing potentially conflicting rights in such a way as to minimize conflict. So if your state infringes your right to marry/bear arms/start an ISP, then it is incumbent on everyone, including the federal government and the courts, to ensure your rights are protected.

So there is no problem with this, except if the community makes any rules that discriminates against other potential competitors, thus infringing their rights. This means that they should not regulate themselves.

Naturally, this philosophy is observed only when it suits the politicians, which results in the problems we observe.

Facebook can connect the world, I have no problem with that. But if they screw with anything they are not allowed to call it "internet".

May I suggest the All Obnoxious Liars system?

Same should apply to Net Neutrality - do anything except route packets and you lose common carrier status and the right to "internet". I offer this one-sentence regulation to the FCC for free.

To those who have modded me as a troll, I am downhearted that you don't seem to get the irony.

Made me think of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

I'm sure bitcoin is being used to pay for VPN service. Once again confirming that bitcoin is the preferred tool of criminals.

These terrorist groups have slowly realized that the the biggest damage is not from bombs or airplanes, it is the self-inflicted damage that results. The DHS apparatus, multiple foreign wars and entanglements, loss of liberties, police militarization, "papieren, bitte" and a collective nervous breakdown are draining away the treasure and economic and social vitality of the USA. This is achieved at no cost beyond posting a video on the internet, and beheading any Americans who are stupid enough to visit them.

This is as asymmetric as warfare can get. You may say things are ok in America, but in reality it could have been much, much better..

Republic Wireless has built-in auto-accept of TOS (not technically a login) for otherwise open hotspots. The phone will attempt to "click-through" to get internet access, and if you confirm it has succeeded, it will remember the settings for future use. Now this is somewhat experimental and not perfect, but it does remove much of the hassle. RW is working to improve this all the time.

The problem is that many hotspots are severely crippled, with tiny bandwidth, blocked port and services. For example, all the big stores in the local mall have them, but I suspect their only purpose is to track you, not to provide a decent internet connection. They are therefore not useful for calling.

Can this be used for making babies?

You might not use the features, but they might be active all the same, and snooping on you. Even if you have not configured them or think you have turned them off.

I have met a few gay people who wished I would adapt to them, but I never met one who expected it. I think you need to explain yourself better.

You mean like swatting?

As long as I am the one deciding which sites I don't want to access.

Why is water not an economic cost?

Indeed. But the OP has not provided the name of the bank? Why not? Afraid of the unknown potential consequences of doing so, I'll guess. This is the problem a libertarian would address.