I understand "one key, many IP addresses" as being suggestive of licence violations, but why would "many keys, one IP address" be?
From "impossible" to "done" in a few hours, once I sent a letter to the regulatory bodies. They won't do the job they are required by law to do, unless threatened with legal action. And, sadly, that was my best experience with ATT, as the problem was fixed, even if it took them 6 months to fix their DSL service, and required I send letters to the national and state governments.
Gauge the person, then accept what they say or don't. Demanding cites like everything is a Slashdot thread makes *you* the idiot. What, are you to dumb or too lazy to look it up yourself?
You can bet that if a theory of gravity came out and it threatened the political or economic status quo, it would provoke a political response. When Edwin Armstrong's invention of FM radio started to gain market traction, RCA used it's political influence to have the FCC take the frequency band Armstrong's radios worked on shifted, making all the radios he'd sold useless. And if that had been done today, the next thing you'd have is is an army of PR flacks and FOX selling the public on the idea that FM radio was "tainted engineering".
Climate science isn't politically tainted. That's only PR BS. If you want to see for yourself, use Google Scholar to search for climate science paper abstracts from the early 50s to the 80s -- well before anyone outside the field heard the term "global warming". You'll be able to actually see the scientific consensus shift from global cooling to warming over the course of thirty years, completely outside the public spotlight.
I've worked in a physics lab (fusion). I've worked in a geophysics lab. Here's the thing about experimental Earth science: you're not working with a idealized, simplified object under controlled laboratory conditions. You are working with something that is immense and messy and which inherently generates a lot of contradictory data. It doesn't make the big picture impossible to put together, it just means it takes a lot of hard to obtain data to shift the consensus one way or the other. It took forty years for anthropogenic global warming to become the scientific consensus; the first papers were published in the fifties and the idea that the world was warming was hotly contested for at least three decades
Contradictory data is something fundamental to empirical science. Empirical science generalizes from contradictory evidence.
When I was in college, "conservative" meant someone who was cautiously pragmatic. Now it refers to someone who adheres to certain conservative axioms -- a radical in other words (radical == "root"). Radicals by their nature prefer deduction from known truths to induction from messy evidence. This is evident in your citing mathematics as the gold standard, despite the utter inapplicability of its methods to geoscience. Mathematics doesn't deal in messy, mutually contradicting truths. Nor does political orthodoxy of any stripe.
That's why "conservatives" latch on to local phenomena -- like the snow outside their door -- that seem to confirm their preconception that the globe is not currently warming. In mathematics the number 9 disproves the assertion that all odd counting numbers are prime. In climate science the medieval warming period in Europe doesn't disprove that the globe as a whole was cooler at that time. To radicals the existence of contradictions in the supporting data is corrupt. To scientists the lack of contradictions in data is fishy.
Left-wing radicals are equally confused by apparently contradictory data points, and likewise seize on the ones that "prove" their universal truths (e.g. that vaccines cause autism).
You can't fix stupid.
You just gave me an awesome business idea. I'm going to open up a shop in Williamsburg selling stuff like bulk coax and ethernet taps so the kids can cable their apartments retro-style.
> Harris forces it's gov customers to sign an NDA that essentially says they're not customers of Harris.
I take extreme issue with your use of the word "Force".
A person "Forced" to do something cannot be considered responsible for his actions, so if they are being "forced" that is a pretty serious accusation. Unless you have evidence of some manner of blackmail or threat, then I don't see how it can be applied.
They always had the option of backing out and not buying the equipment. Nobody was forced, they were accomplices.
Well if you are actually a congressman the answer is simple....you write all laws that apply to you and people like you such that the law itself specifically requires your understanding of it in order to break it. Most laws that apply specifically to lawmakers almost always contain words like "knowingly".
If you are not a lawmaker or one of their clients who pays for the law to be made....then its irrelevant, nobody gives a shit about you.
I'll tell you one thing that's got worse though: the hours.