Either way, its a huge amount of bureaucracy, which can likely be better served by companies in it for profit, wanting to develop space flight for long-term use.
Rules are there for a reason. Security policies are there for a reason. If you don't like it, go to another job where they "get" you. Then, you can wonder why their IT budget is ballooning and you can't get your bonus.
Also, don't lawmakers ever consult a real technical person when it comes to stuff like this?
What? No. You're getting this backwards. Lawmakers don't seek out people informed with opinions. People with opinions (and agendas) lobby lawmakers to get their views legislated.
This is the result of profit-driven enterprise gaining access to political power, and nothing else.
NO (!) content restrictions, no censorship on these lines. If something illegal is going on, that's a job for investigators.
I take issue with your second sentence as well, because we both know that the building of any infrastructure will be subsidized with tax dollars. This will happen regardless of neutrality or non-neutrality. I argue that upgrading is the way to go.
QOS and DPI are already in place. Our current net is not neutral. Leaving Internet Classic on IPv4 will just make it more deprecated.
I don't even want to have this discussion. Two nets is not an option, in my opinion. Hobbling the "good" internet with IPv4 isn't a good consideration for the two-net scenario, either.
Or, is it just because you're used to it?
Compatibility lists are always your friend in the land of hackintosh. You might be able to do something with 3U or 4U generic cases. Support would likely go out the window too.