Wow - I'm not sure you should be using the sample of bad existing code as an argument against PHP and FOR perl. Yikes.
Classification as common carrier, and true net neutrality rules (the level of net neutrality most people actually want) based on that are two different things.
And what, exactly, is the difference?
There is the classification of ISPs as common carriers - which we don't have.
Once you have the classification, you have the rules that govern common carrier ISPs - which we also do not have.
We need both. Simply reclassifying them as common carriers isn't going to do much, because we need the rules that govern them to specify exactly what they are and aren't allowed to do, and how to measure and enforce this, and what the penalties are for violations.
Until ISPs are classified as common carriers, the FCC will not have the authority to enforce any level of net neutrality - which a former FCC chairman has recently stated. I have not said, and do not believe, that we have ever had any level of net neutrality.
We had exactly that until 2005 when the FCC reclassified DSL and CATV ISPs as "information services" (not common carrier) from their previous classification of "telecommunications service" (common carrier) which they had held since the inception of the internet.
Classification as common carrier, and true net neutrality rules (the level of net neutrality most people actually want) based on that are two different things. We've never had both of those at the same time. And unless and until they're reclassified as common carriers, net neutrality is a non-starter.
I very much disagree that simply because we don't now, and have never had true net neutrality, that means we can't ever have it. We can have it, but we have to fight for it.
Because it would be illegal
What was the rule or regulation or law from Net Neutrality that made what Verizon is doing illegal?
I want someone to be specific because my point is this Verizon action has NOTHING to do with Net Neutrality, and would not be stopped by any Net Neutrality rules that the FCC put forth before they were told to stop.
So I repeat; HOW WOULD VERSION NOT BE ABLE TO DO WHAT THEY ARE DOING?
There is no current authority by the FCC (which they recently admitted) that allows them to enforce net neutrality. Even before that admission, what they had in place would not have worked as net neutrality, and was certainly never legally challenged and upheld in any court to cement it. Until ISPs are classified as common carriers, the FCC will not have the authority to enforce any level of net neutrality - which a former FCC chairman has recently stated. I have not said, and do not believe, that we have ever had any level of net neutrality. I am advocating FOR true net neutrality. That doesn't mean that what Verizon is supposedly doing doesn't violate the spirit of what people want net neutrality protection against, however.
Because it would be illegal, and they would be subject to legal repercussions, unlike now. What part of this do you find confusing?
I probably wouldn't renew at $119. And without free shipping, I would order less stuff from Amazon. That doesn't sound too good for the shareholders.
The entity Snowden is blowing the whistle on is the same entity responsible for deciding if he should be prosecuted (or persecuted). This is an egregious conflict of interest that doesn't happen when someone blows the while on a corporation.
The first step towards the inevitable anti-Hydrogen Economy, yay!
I am tired of chrome not implementing W3C standards without using the -webkit to get it to work properly. I am not the only once concerned it is the next IE 6 but thankfully there are only a few sites which only work well in Chrome.
You seem to have no idea why IE6 was the big problem it was. It's not possible for Chrome to be "the new IE6", since:
1) It's not tied into Windows
2) It auto-updates silently, and new version adoption is VERY high among Chrome users.
3) vendor prefixes are not much of a problem compared to not implementing features at all, or implementing them badly.
Nice troll attempt, though.
Yeah, 7-digit lusers are the worst!
Ralph Ellison's book is "Invisible Man". It's hard to take seriously the literary lamentations of someone who biffs something as basic as the titles of the books being lamented.
Wild guess: He's mixing a cheap off-line UPS with a horrible PC PSU that can't do the required hold-up time.
Ah, good point. I haven't skimped on the PSU in 15 years. It's the dumbest piece of a machine to skimp on.
I've never found a UPS useful. I used to buy them, but this always happened:
* Power went out
* UPS didn't quite come up in time
* Computer reset
* UPS now was happy to provide power for my computer to boot
I've tried very expensive and very cheap - they just don't work for computers in my experience, and the batteries need replacing every couple of years, and are difficult to dispose of.
"UPS didn't quite come up in time"? WTF? I've never had a UPS do that, and I"m on my third one in 12 years.
Unless we provide them with access to old games, how will they ever sympathize with the pain we went through? Trying to kill the pterodactyl in Joust, or the robot dragon boss at the end of Super Zaxxon?! Or the absolute terror upon seeing Sinistar appear on the screen, "RUN, COWARD!" "I HUNGER. *RAWWWWR!*"
Unless we make them experience these things for themselves, it'll be just like when the vets returned from VietNam, "You don't know man, you weren't there!"