It was a joke, but if we are going to take it seriously it is certainly not out of the realm of possibility for an ISP to redirect a specific URL to a different URL. Just get the 404 page from the site and redirect it there as it passes through the provider's network gear. Similar process to the one used by internet providers in countries that have mandatory blacklists for "pirate" sites.
Thank God. I was completely convinced you were dead serious. I always laugh when I see somebody feed a troll or miss such an obvious joke, but I guess it still happens to me every once in a while too.
As for what's possible, I had considered spoofing a 404 page in the US by a US corporation against another US corporation over an issue the NSA probably doesn't care about too unlikely and confusing to mention to such an obvious n00b.
But, but, but... regulation is the antithesis of the Capitaist way that our republican Democracy has weaned its children on since it was formed!!
I do tend to agree though - regulation of ISPs is probably the only way to deal with this.
That is basically the way I see it, too. Capitalism works extremely well as long as there is real competition. It fails miserably when there is no competition and when that happens, strict regulation is needed. Nobody seems to understand that anymore. There is no middle ground in regulating a free market. It has to be black or white because when it's gray, somebody is getting screwed. The absolute worst thing that you can do to an economy is half-assed regulation. You get artificial, government sanctioned monopolies that, as all monopolies ever have always done, abuse their power.
And sure enough, on one side, you've got Democrats writing laws requiring that whatever industry their biggest contributor is in has to do certain things a particular way (which happens to be the way their biggest donor already does things and most of their competitors don't because it's pathetically inefficient or lazy, or how their biggest contributor would like to do things so they can charge more), all for the little guy's rights or the victim's safety or whatever, while the Republicans defend that same donor's (who, coincidentally, is also their biggest contributor) right to continue abusing the new or expanded monopoly (or trust) they just received from the aforementioned Democrat's new law, in defense of the free market. Everybody sees them on TV, fighting ravenously to defend their principles, but fails to notice that both of them just gave their corporate sponsors exactly what they wanted, at the public's expense.
And that is precisely why we're screwed. Most of the people who aren't too lazy to stop watching TV to get out and vote end up voting for one of the two clowns they saw duking it out on TV. Anybody left who realizes just how badly we're being screwed has given up and stays home and watches TV.
Your ISP isn't Verizon by chance is it?
No, if he's getting a 404, there's a connection to the server. Would be hilarious if Verizon had something to do with it, but we can't pin that one on them.
Find locations where you will hurt Verizon customers, and cut the cables. Do so publicly. Precondition repair on upgrades of Verizon's network as you direct. If Verizon doesn't want network neutrality, then punish their customers.
I wish it was that simple, but I'm on board with the general idea. I wouldn't publicly cut the cables. That's too extreme. I would, however, like to see Level 3 turn the tables and publicly (as noisily as possible) accuse Verizon of using up all their bandwidth and that if Verizon doesn't help them pay for the costs of upgrading, their customers just won't be able to watch Netflix anymore. "I don't see why Verizon is taking issue with this. It's standard practice. People download a lot of video from us. Remember folks, we're not downloading from them! Verizon's users are downloading from us! They're the ones using all the traffic!" (I know that's a completely inaccurate and misleading explanation of the situation - an outright lie, if you will - but that's the point.)
If Verizon customer's thought "Who's Level 3? Netflix is paying them so I can watch Netflix, and now they want to charge Verizon money so I can watch Netflix? So basically I'm getting charged twice to watch Netflix? This will not stand!"
Then when everybody has turned their heads in their direction, Level 3 would say, "Just kidding! Here's what's really going on..." and tell people a simplified version of what they said in TFA. Then maybe people would start to care about net neutrality. (If you were to replace Level 3 with Netflix themselves, it would oh, so much better!)
Of course, it's a good thing I'm not in charge of either company because I'd have just lost an unprecedented amount of business and ruined the company's reputation in the process, and unfortunately, the average person isn't going to respond a calm, well-reasoned, fact-based argument like TFA. Most people just aren't going to care as long as there's something playing on TV. When you get in the way of that, people will definitely notice, but anybody even remotely involved in such an affair will be ruined for life.
Like those obnoxious
I live in the US and can say this is never going to change. The internet was not always international, and when it opened up to the public,
The question: is it enough to save BlackBerry in the consumer market, or is it too little, too late?
How long has it been since BlackBerry has had more than a negligible share of the consumer market? These days, they seem to be almost exclusively enterprise. Seriously, the last time I can think of that anybody I know who bought their own BlackBerry was like 7 years ago. Who is using BlackBerry for personal use?
being able to lock a person up for 6 months as opposed to 30 years and getting the same result might be a good thing.
I hit Submit too soon. I should add that this would absolutely need to be completely voluntary. You can't tinker with somebody's brain without permission, especially as punishment. That's just wrong.
That's ridiculous. If we wanted to cause as much damage to the criminals as possible, why not simply reinstate torture?
You missed part of it. "Is it really OK to lock someone up for the best part of the only life they will ever have, or might it be more humane to tinker with their brains and set them free?" Yes, you can inflict longer sentences for more severe cases, but they have more of their lifespan left when they get done serving their sentence. Don't get me wrong, I think 1000 year sentences are both cruel and unusual, but being able to lock a person up for 6 months as opposed to 30 years and getting the same result might be a good thing.
they are fundamentally unverifiable
They are fundamentally unverifiable as long as you are inside them. Of course, if you can ever escape your simulation, that suggests duality... On that note, Descartes did not believe reality was an illusion and yet he believed in duality. They seem mutually exclusive to me.
Isn't that answer supposed to be 42?
I believe you are thinking of 6 * 9.
There seem to be more things that are _known_ to be dangerous, but these things obviously were dangerous even when we didn't know they were.
I moderated a really controversial article once and as a result I stopped getting moderator points (as I expect did anybody else who moderated in that discussion, because I promoted comments on both sides of the issue). Since I can't mod you up, I'll just say "good point" in hopes that you get modded up some more.
Taking your comment a step further, this is "Good news, everyone!" because when we know these chemicals are bad, we avoid them. Not all of them are regulated, but manufacturers know people care about their kids safety so they avoid using chemicals shown to be bad (like BPA). That doesn't mean kids are no longer exposed to all of them, but I'd wager they're exposed to significantly fewer of them in smaller amounts than we were as kids.