Do you see how that position is 100% inconsistent with your original argument? By the logic of your original argument, a US company hosting a site for a US customer should be able to completely ignore UK law. But your original argument was that if they did so, they have no right to complain if that causes bad things to happen.

You wind up having to argue that every hosting provider everywhere in the world should take note of any content they may have that might be deemed unlawful or inappropriate in any jurisdiction and somehow segregate it. That's the total opposite of "each different country should be to follow its laws", that's, "everyone has to follow every country's laws".

It is absolutely NOT the responsibility of a US company to follow North Korean law just because people from North Korea access their Internet services.

You're projecting when you say that, "Only the fucking Americans think their law applies to the whole world." You're the one arguing that a US company servicing US customers should follow the law of every single country from which they could possibly find their Internet site accessed.

So you concede that your claim, " Any reputable cloud provider would disconnect any of their customers deemed to be hosting illegal content." is bunk? If not, why would you reply without defending it?

Do you really believe that if North Korea passes a law prohibiting web sites that mock their leader, CloudFlare wouldn't be a reputable company unless they disconnected any customer who had a site that mocked their leader?

The thing is, there's no such thing as an "infringing site". This is a site that the UK has decided should be blocked from people in their jurisdiction. Next Germany may decide to block access to sites that deny the Holocaust and China may decide to block sites that advocate Taiwanese independence. Then the US will want to block sites that have gambling. And on and on it goes.

I'm looking forward to pulling all my mSATA EVOs out of their RAID controllers, inserting them one at a time into a spare PC with one mSATA slot, and upgrading their firmware. The last update (which also rewrites all data) took over two hours per drive, and it looks like this next one is going to take just as long. Anybody want to spend a really boring weekend with me?

The EVO's are still the only 1TB mSATA drive, so not a lot of choices.

Actually, their profit is in the software. Their hardware isn't significantly different from everyone else's hardware. The reason most people buy their hardware is because their software makes that hardware very easy to monitor and manage. With routers, just like with phones, good software sells hardware.

It's a huge defense. The difference between commercial and hobby/recreational activity is whether the primary motivation is making money or relaxation/recreation. Showing that the amounts of money made are very, very small strengthens the argument that it's a hobby/recreational activity rather than a commercial activity.

It's not jamming. They're not transmitting at the same time as someone else or using more power than other people. They're sending data when the channel is idle and at the normal power level, but it has the consequence of breaking connections because those connections are so insecure that anyone can break them. This has no effect on secure networks.

It's the reverse. They block outside hotspots because they are thinking about liability. Imagine if someone creates a hotspot with the same SSID as the hotel's, MITM's the login process, and steals credentials.

There's no shared secret between you and the hotel and no way to know the hotel's public key. Thus the only way the hotel can protect you from connecting to an attacker is to detect and block the attacker's signals.

You might be talking about XRP, but I think most other people are talking about the payment network.

Jed McCaleb left. The original development team (myself, Arthur Britto, Stefan Thomas, Vahe Hovhannisyan, etc) is still here, and Chris Larsen, the first CEO, is still CEO. Ripple Labs currently has more than 80 full time employees working to develop and promote the protocol.

Ripple does not require a centrally administered list of trusted transaction processing servers. That's just like arguing that Bitcoin requires a centrally administered list of valid transaction formats. Substantial agreement does not require central administration.

I think what you're missing is that this film is newsworthy and publishers of news have a significant interest in keeping that news available. It doesn't matter to Google who gags them, they don't want to be gagged.

Right, but the question is whether those rights include any copyright in the resulting work. She's going after third parties who have done nothing wrong, not the guy who deceived her.

There's nothing inherently irrational about this. For example, if your daughter says to you, "My grades are bad and my teacher says I need to spend more time studying", you'd believe her. But if she says, "My grades are bad and my teacher says I need to stay up later", you might not. The incentive to exaggerate or misstate evidence depends on the consequences of accepting the evidence, and thus the reliability of evidence depends on its consequences as well.