Basically, it was a pissing match like people claim it was. Something that USED to be called out on the carpet over- because it's violating common carrier status that the jokers in question all have and alternately want and don't want. (They don't want the regulation, but they want the shield from vicarious liability from their customers' actions...)
The biggest problem without them is you'd end up having a tragedy of the commons. How would any of them intercommunicate to allow the Internet to be.
One of the things you can do is harshly punish the ISPs in question when they play games like this. One of the things they have right now is "common carrier" status. That's a liability shield against all sorts of things that your customers might do that's illegal. You could be held vicariously liable if you don't have that status and they commit acts of sedition, copyright infringement, etc. You used to run the very real risk of losing that status as a provider of services if you pulled a stunt like this- which kept them mostly from pulling crap like this. We need to bring that back, to be honest.
Internet2 Announces First Full-Production Virtual Internet Network Architecture
It gives me a better sense of what they're doing, but I'd still be happy to have someone dumb this down into an automotive analogy.
... If someone spray paints my neighbor's mailbox with graffiti and I clean it off, is that vigilantism?
It's not racist to observe that African Americans are much more likely to be impoverished than whites.
As a percentage of the African American population, this is true.
In absolute numbers, white individuals are poor more often than African Americans.
The poverty figures roughly break down to ~40% white, ~25% black, ~25% hispanic, ~4% asian.
If you want the numbers to add up to 100, you'll have to look up the actual figures.
Poverty is not exclusively a minority problem, yet that perception heavily colors any discussion of the issue.
The fact is that NO ONE who runs for President or Congress anymore opposes H1B's. They're all now completely owned by corporations. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM.
Yes, YOUR GUY TOO!
Even RON PAUL voted to increase H1-B visas while he was in Congress.
Because it's been a problem up to this point...not the corporate repository- just about any twit could make an installer/injector that was transparently fire and forget for Windows. Because of the design, it's a bit harder with most Linux distributions whether you're talking about RPM, DEB, or any other packaging system. But, for windows, whether it was GUI or not, it's just simply there. If it wasn't, you wouldn't need AVG/Avast/Avira/etc. or MalwareBytes/etc.
As such, it's a joke. Not liking it? Get Microsoft to get their act together or switch OSes...
Heh... How long did it take them to get to that? 20 *YEARS* (RHL 1.0 - November 1994) now?
Seriously Microsoft. Took you long enough.
If not, then why are you sneering at the companies that are actually doing something, rather than nothing?
I'm not sneering at anyone.
What I am, is aware that even free hardware comes with its own costs.
You have to prevent theft, manage software on it, track it, lock down the browser, deal with breakage, and a dozen other details.
Underprivileged schools are the least able to to do all these things, either because of staffing or funding.
And the only way they can manage such requirements is by taking time/money away from other educational goals.
It's very easy for a well intentioned gift to turn into a white elephant.
You don't need a pencil to operate an iPad, and these poor kids will likely benefit more than most from exposure to technology.
If the iPad is a replacement for text books, then I am happy to concede this point.
If it isn't a replacement, yes the students will benefit from exposure to technology, but that exposure won't make up for what's missing.
It shouldn't, that's my point, there shouldn't be any government involvement in our private lives at all, there shouldn't be any government involvement in anything beyond the very basic protection against invasion and that's it.
You are welcome to your ideology, but it's almost completely unsupported by the ideals behind the Declaration of Independence and Constitution.
Honestly, it sounds like you're living in the wrong country, but I can't say I know of one that meets your desires.
The countries with no *de facto "involvement in anything beyond the very basic protection against invasion,"
are all so incredibly weak... that they cannot provide even a minimal protection against invasion.
*AFAIK, there's no country with a de jure state of affairs that you'd enjoy.
"Underprivileged" schools really need basics like text books, notebooks, and pencils for the kids.
Technology is not a replacement for the bare necessities that are missing in the most underfunded schools.
- precisely. If you live on a farm somewhere you are not entitled to have your services subsidised by people who live in the cities. You shouldn't be subsidised regardless where you live, regardless for what the reasons are, regardless of who you are.
Did you know that the Federal Government's authority to build highways comes exclusively from their enumerated power To establish Post offices and post Roads;
/While we're at it, let's undo rural electrification and telephone programs too
evaporation leaves behind the heavier components of oil,
This is the portion of the barrel that ends up
1. getting burned in the engines of massive cargo ships
2. turned into asphalt
3. being used as feedstock for industrial chemistry
/Before asphalt, the tar leftover from the pyrolysis of coal was used for the same purposes.
Now seeing the company first fined, then have its stock slide, and then be sued by its shareholders....THAT seems like it would send the right message, don't you think?
The alternative is to pierce the corporate veil and directly go after the executives (and lawyers) who signed off on this.
While it's a fun idea, it would create all kinds of chaos until the loopholes are figured out and everyone goes back to business as normal. So instead we'll be stuck with punishing those poor innocent shareholders whose demands for better profits and larger dividends are a major driver of shitty corporate behavior.
More realistically, at the corporate level, salary/bonus/benefit clawback provisions in executive contracts would go a ways towards disincentivizing criminal behavior. But the odds of that happening are slim to none, and Slim is actually a billionaire businessman, so he's already against it.