There's a reason we export it all.
It is indeed an "actual" limit, just imposed by your ISP instead of by physics. The ISP allocates you a virtual channel to the Internet backbone that supports X bits per month, just like how your cell tower or wi-fi access point allocates you a physical frequency channel with a data rate of Y bits per second (discounting contention).
The only difference is that the ISP channel's data allowance is accounted for over a month - you can have higher peak speeds, and if you don't use your maximum channel capacity (i.e. reach your cap) on a given day, you can use it on a later day. To use your example, "bandwidth" is "this much per second until the end of time", and the ISP is "this much per month until the end of time" (both assuming you maintain your service until the end of time, naturally).
Same thing - this is just bandwidth expressed in bits/month (with peak speeds a bit higher).
Humans love to bask in the feeling of being in control, especially when it comes to cars.
You forgot about buses, taxis, and also ordinary passengers in your own car. People will happily cede control to a driver they trust.
I enjoy driving as much as the next guy, but not all the time, not when I'm too tired/drunk, and rarely in traffic. A significant majority of driving is done for utility, not enjoyment. Personally I would welcome a car with the option of an autopilot.
For even more geek appeal, Judge Wright also peppered his order with Star Trek references, beginning with this quote:
“The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.”
—Spock, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982)
and hammering it home towards the end:
Third, though Plaintiffs boldly probe the outskirts of law, the only enterprise they resemble is RICO. The federal agency eleven decks up is familiar with their prime directive and will gladly refit them for their next voyage.
I strongly suspect he deliberately designed this order to get maximum publicity with the tech media.
Was actually supposed to read, "the right to bare arms".
And they're all great, right? Can never have too much water washing over your cities and farmland, and the more extreme weather, drought & crop failure, species extinction, refugees and political turmoil, the better.
Embrace the climate change! The tsunami of costs to adapt will wash over us, leaving us clean of funds and fresh of heart, ready to tackle the warm new challenges that await us!
Where did you dig up that link? It's comedy gold! Successfully nailed every denialist cliche I could think of.
I'm gonna have to add this "Nongovernmental Planel (sic) on Climate Change" to my Humour feed for my morning chuckle.
Who wants an automobile analogy? The relevance is terrible; the few points of similarity can rarely get you through a sustained argument or carry your point across. You have to prop it up with "humour" constantly, instead of simply letting the conclusions wander around the empty pastures of people's minds.
No, there's simply no future in the automobile analogy, once Slashdot tries them out and finds how limiting they really are.
Obligatory analogy: the difference between a contract with your signature on it, and a contract with your DNA on it.
Biometrics are not authentication in themselves, but can still be useful as the identity component of two- or three-factor authentication.
It's worth noting that the NATO intervention was at the UN's request, in response to specific UNSC resolutions, not because NATO felt the UN would do nothing. But of course it's also true that the UN peacekeepers obviously should have done something. As Kofi Annan said, "We made serious errors of judgement, rooted in a philosophy of impartiality and non-violence which, however admirable, was unsuited to the conflict in Bosnia."
I won't pretend to argue that the UN is perfect; my point was more that the US public's perception of them switched from "cautious" to "useless" around that time, which was and is untrue despite their occasional failures. Rather, as Annan said, the UN prefers to err on the side of caution rather than charging in, guns blazing. This is not always the most effective approach, but I still strongly feel it is better to be late in stopping a massacre than to cause one yourself.
For an analogy, which would you rather see - a police force that failed to prevent some crimes due to following procedure, or a mob of vigilantes that occasionally killed far more innocents than guilty?
Inevitable doom isn't the problem; doubtless ecosystems will adapt eventually. Until then, crop failures, population displacement, extreme weather, extinctions and ecosystem disruption on a global scale over the next 50-100+ years are to be expected. What if those trillions in adaptation costs could be reduced or avoided?
And is that opinion based on a fair & accurate assessment of the UN's policies and methods, or is it based on what you've heard through the corporate run media outlets (and the opinions of those who read them)? Are you perchance from the US?
There was a very clear (to many non-US observers at least) rise of anti-UN sentiment in the US, which peaked around that time - a marked change from the decades of generally pro-UN feeling from one of its most important founding members. And it was a very clear sentiment - the UN was seen to be ineffective, dragging its heels, even obstructing what needed to be done.
But the fact is, Hans Blix was right, the UN Weapons Inspection Team was right, and the US-led "Coalition of the Willing" (which, I'm sad to say, my country was also a member of) was wrong. As a result, we saw an illegal, unprovoked invasion that ultimately resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of combatants, and over a hundred thousand collateral civilian deaths.
Why bother hiring expensive celebrity astroturfers when your hacker sweatshop can get the same result for 1/20th the cost?
You get the occasional 'Need to post this by 8:20' slips, but hey, you get what you pay for.
Then sideload. It's pretty damn easy.
Point being, there are choices - lots of them. All choices have downsides and upsides, and you have to weigh which is best for you, but the more choices there are, the closer you can get to your ideal situation. Android happens to offer more choices than many, but not using it is also a possible choice.